Kosher Ham Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Looks like a lot of Natives.... It's not really. I want to say that the Oneida Indian Nation is the largest group with about 1000 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 It's not really. I want to say that the Oneida Indian Nation is the largest group with about 1000 people. Actually, I looked at that list, a while ago. Just decided to do some research on it. Picked a couple of names off the list, and looked into them. And several of them do look legit. Oneida Indian Nation is not one of them. "Oneida Indian Nation" means Ray Hallbritter, CEO of Oneida Indian Nation, Inc, the for-profit corporation he created, using money which he got by mortgaging the tribal lands, without the tribe's permission, so that he could create a casino. (And a corporation which he refuses to allow the tribe to audit the books of.) Oneida Indian Nation is a sub-tribe of a larger, famous tribe. (Siox?) And the larger tribe has voted, twice, that Halbritter is no longer chief of the tribe. But Hallbritter, thanks to his casino, is now politically connected, and one of the DC politicians from New York state, has leaned on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and is preventing them from recognizing the Sioux vote. One of the complaints about Hallbritter is that the tribe actually only owns, I think 23 acres of tribal land. And that, if anybody complains about Hallbritter, then a bunch of casino security guards show up at that person's house, announce that the house has been determined to be unfit for habitation, and the owner is evicted, and the land now belongs to the tribe. Hallbritter just recently worked out a deal with the State of New York, in which Hallbritter agreed to start collecting sales tax in the convenience stores which the tribe owns, in exchange for the State of NY recognizing the casino security guards as law enforcement officers. But, for example, I remember that one of the tribes on that list, a very famous one, is actually a collection of like six tribes, some of them also having names you've heard of. And the tribe is listed as supporting name change because the governing council, or whatever it's called, of this umbrella organization for the six smaller tribes, voted, by a good margin, to sign the petition. This was a real elected body. Elected by the tribes, and empowered to speak for them, and to actually pass laws governing them. If you will, this was the Native equivalent of a Congressional Resolution. An actual vote by the actual elected representatives of those six tribes. (Granted, I think the petition people chose to list them seven times: Once under the name of the umbrella organization, and also under the names of each of the six sub-tribes.) Yeah, like a lot of petitions, some of the names on the list may be jokes or things you can dismiss. But they aren't all that way. And while the are the "signatures" of politicians, in many vases, they are politicians who legitimately have been empowered to speak for those tribes. ---------- Now, though, having said all that? Barack Obama has said he wants the name changed. Does that mean it's fair to say that "The Unites States wants it changed"? Cause, near as I can tell, every single time anybody has actually asked the people of the US, the answer has been resoundingly the other way. And that's where we get to the whole "well, yeah, some politicians from Tribe X said the name should change. But did they ask the people of the tribe?" question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Another point about the oft-cited Annenberg poll is that it is now over 10 years old. In this day and age, attitudes can change dramatically in the course of a decade. i will never understand this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 So what I'm gathering from the last few pages is that someone has had a change of heart and everyone who hasn't is in the wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 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? Of course one may just as easily ask why Dan Snyder doesn't conduct a poll. If the pro-name side is so confident that the Annenburg result will hold, what have they got to lose? My guess is that the percentage who are offended by the name has increased, which would harm the pro-name camp. Otherwise, why not? Conducting a poll is cheap, as you say. To your credit, you do mention the possibility, but you don't apply the same logic. I might also add that even if the Annenburg result holds, which I doubt it will, you're still talking about a lot of people who are offended. Also it's false that the name change camp hasn't conducted any polls, for example: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143 67 Percent of Native Americans Say ‘Redskins’ Is Offensive Rachael Johnson 6/4/14 That now infamous 2004 Associated Press Annenberg survey – quoted ad nauseam by TV pundits, fans, and even NFL representatives – said that a majority of Native Americans believe the name “Redskins” is not offensive. Well, according to a California professor, they’re all wrong. James Fenelon, Lakota/Dakota from Standing Rock, a sociology professor at California State University, San Bernardino, compiled his own data, and the results show that 67 percent of Native Americans believe that “Redskins” is a racist word. During a news conference in January, when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that nine out of ten Native Americans “prefer” the name “Redskins,” he was quoting that 2004 survey of 768 people who identified themselves as American Indian. “Of course it is both disgusting and predictable,” Fenelon told ICTMN about the 90 percent figure that Goodell quoted. “It is a major reason why I agreed to take this [study] on… The dominant society knows on some level that it is bogus to run these uncritical polls, and then reproduce results that don't resonate with real experience." . . . http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf Survey on Redskins team name found most American Indians believe it to be offensive and racist. The Center for Indigenous Peoples Studies at California State University, San Bernardino has conducted a study on racial and ethnic perspectives on the team name Redskins and associated issues, and found that the large majority of American Indians, when properly identified and polled, find the team name offensive, disrespectful and racist. The first question on the survey tells the basic story: The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol. American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement. Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses. The neutral category played a significant role for whites in allowing them to not be seen as “racist” – upon further analysis more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist. The survey was conducted based on similar work done on the Cleveland Indians Chief Wahoo mascot, when analysts found mainstream research agendas systematically mis-identified Native Americans to benefit dominant ideologies that American Indians supported the mascot and team name. The Center's Principal Investigator, Professor James Fenelon, oversaw the collection of over 400 surveys directly from individuals who could be verified as being the race or ethnic group they claimed (important for self-identified Native Americans). . . . http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/15/the-redskins-poll-bill-oreilly-thought-didnt-ex/203661 The "Redskins" Poll Bill O'Reilly Thought Didn't Exist Shows Native Americans Hate The Name Poll: 67 Percent Think The Name Of Washington, D.C.'s NFL Franchise Is Racist . . . O'REILLY: I just think it's so ridiculous to bring up the Redskins. I'd really like to have a poll, and this is serious, among Native Americans. You know, to poll them and to see do you really think the Washington Redskins is racist? Really? I mean, you know, the intent of it is the noble fighter, all right? If you look at the logo and that you know, the Cleveland Indians. I don't know. In 2014, a California State University, San Bernardino sociology professor did poll the Native American community on the topic. The poll found that 67 percent of Native Americans believe the NFL team's name is "racist." . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Also it's false that the name change camp hasn't conducted any polls, for example:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143 http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf No, they have not conducted a poll. They intentionally, artificially, constructed an IMMITATION poll. You see, the mathematics of conducting a poll revolve around the mathematics of conducting a RANDOM sample of the larger population. Reputable polling groups go to great lengths to make sure that they survey a random group of people. In fact, they kinda make sure that it isn't random, but balanced. If, say, blacks make up 18% of the population, then they try to make sure that they make up 18% of the sample. They make sure that the number of genders, the distribution of income levels, of rural vs suburban vs city dwellers, the number of people per state, all match the ratios of the larger group who they are trying to approximate. Annenberg and other reputable polls spend a great deal of effort, making certain that they are surveying a RANDOM sample of people. Professor Fenelon, on the other hand, hand picked two gatherings of Native American POLITICAL ACTIVISTS (and will not reveal which gatherings, or how he picked them), in California, at which he hand picked less than 100 Natives, and asked them. Wonder what kind of results I could get, if I conducted my "poll" at two Tea Party rallies. And then, when he got his hand picked sample, he asked them a question, and then lied about what he asked them. He asked them six questions. (He will not reveal what two of the questions were, or what the results of those questions were). The first question asked people whether the name of the Redskins was "racist OR RACIAL". (My emphasis). Every person who answered "yes", he counted as voting "racist". I'm frankly surprised that his "poll" didn't get 100% voting that the name was RACIAL. The name may or may not be offensive, depending on the person. But I don't see how anybody could claim that it's not a reference to a race. I would have voted that the name is racial, because the name absolutely does refer to a race. (It's not RACIST, because it does not imply that said race is INFERIOR. Nobody is going to name their football team the Schenectady Slackasses. The name was picked to refer to said race as SUPERIOR. As a reference to their greatness). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 my apologies Park City Skins Lol you apologized and then broke rule 11 right below your apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Wow this thread spins in circles, debating Annenberg vs Fenelon again. One observation I have is that the trademark ruling only generated one day of coverage, appearing half way down the Huffington Post's front page and then disappearing the next day. Granted the Confederate battle flag story was happening simultaneously, but I feel that there is a bit of fatigue when it comes to arguing about a team's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Wow this thread spins in circles, debating Annenberg vs Fenelon again. Tends to happen when people who are wrong refuse to admit it, and instead shelve their wrong argument for a brief time, then pull it back out again like it still works. I think the only actual new thing in this thread, in what seems like the last five years, was that APA study that Boss brought in. (And even he won't stick with the new argument, but has to run rapidly back and forth between the old ones.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Another point about the oft-cited Annenberg poll is that it is now over 10 years old. In this day and age, attitudes can change dramatically in the course of a decade. Particularly when the only voice that is allowed to be heard repeatedly spreads false information about the word. But hey, anything to advance an agenda right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The simple fact is that as a society we've moved beyond referring to a race of people by the color of their skin. The name is a vestige of a bygone era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The simple fact is that as a society we've moved beyond referring to a race of people by the color of their skin. The name is a vestige of a bygone era. Yep. This is probably the biggest issue here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 And theft of cultural identity being another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 And theft of cultural identity being another. No quite as "simple" a fact, but okay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 And theft of cultural identity being another. I think that one is harder to see if you aren't NA. Imagine having your race already being stereotyped as little more than violent warriors in mainstream media and then seeing a football team using all that imagery to showcase their "war like" tendencies to win a meaningless (to some) football game I've heard that reasoning a few times from various people and while I'm sure that some ( a lot lol) will disagree, I think it's at least reasonable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The simple fact is that as a society we've moved beyond referring to a race of people by the color of their skin. The name is a vestige of a bygone era. I can see that argument. Although I'll point out that it may well sound like a noble ideal that is a long way away from reality. You going to protest every time the media uses the word "black" when discussing racial issues? We need to make the NAACP get rid of their name? (Or are they covered by the "it's only immoral if white people do it" disclaimer?) I'll also ask, though. Does this noble ideal mean the term must be eliminated, whether the Natives think it's offensive or not? And theft of cultural identity being another. Observing that you have just stated an argument for why all Native imagery (and, for that matter, all imagery involving a group of people of any kind. Vikings, Cowboys, Patriots, Buccaneers, soldiers, whatever.) must be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Observing that you have just stated an argument for why all Native imagery (and, for that matter, all imagery involving a group of people of any kind. Vikings, Cowboys, Patriots, Buccaneers, soldiers, whatever.) must be removed. He started this long ago. he thinks people must stay in their place. You may not wear any native imagery or cultural dress because you are not native, even though they will gladly sell it to you. How this is justified, i'll never know,, he never answers when asked. It's ridiculous, and when i think of the typical complaint of the over-PC attempting to oversanitize things, he and his tst tsk notions are who comes to mind, especially since he heeds none of his finer wagging. He will instantly refer to racist George Preston Marshall, but displays Marshall's star acquisition in his avatar. he complains that in those days people stole identity and such, but this is the era he's proud of when it comes to the team... the era of their worst exploitation, as noted the players sometimes donned native gear to entertain the crowd. Somehow supporting the team and not supporting the name are not intertwined. we're always treated to anecdotes about personal discussions with natives, but when asked how they feel when it's apparent he supports the team SO much that he still idolizes every other aspect of it, is (presumably, based on Stadium discussions) a season ticket holder, and will even go to Minnesota to see a game, making sure to stop off and take a peek at the protest he sympathizes with... silence. I don't see how it jives, and i guess i never will. But i will damn sure wear what i want, and if i can go on a Pow wow website and buy native items that I can wear, then i don't think it's right for them to then turn around and shame me for ding so. (Granted, i don't want to wear it,, but if i did.. then what? Am i "playing indian" because i bought my niece the beautiful navajo hair barrette on sale on the pow wow website? Is she being a thief of cultural identity when they SOLD her the identity to wear in her hair?) Again, as i said.. i am not terribly concerned with WHAT happens, i am concerned about how it happens.. and the double messages being sent are at best confusing, and at worst, the exact plastic white-guilt overly PC sanitization that everyone fears when these things crop up. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I disagree with a lot of this country's history and current policies. Am I stupid for staying here? No. It's the country I was born in and the pros outweigh the cons With this team, I don't like the name. Whatever. It's still the team that my whole family supports and has given me numerous memories over the years. The name itself or the logo or Chief Zee or whatever aren't what keeps me a fan. It's just a name. It's the players. It's the stadium. It's tailgating. It's all of that. I changed my stance on the name in the last few months. I don't see what the issue is honestly Should all African American Clippers fans switch teams? Should everyone that opposed the Reds' old racist owner have switched teams ? Not everything is black and white. You can disagree with stuff. It's ok. Don't question someone's loyalty over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 No, they have not conducted a poll. They intentionally, artificially, constructed an IMMITATION poll. I get the impression your criterion for a reputable poll is that it confirms your pre-existing belief. Professor Fenelon, on the other hand, hand picked two gatherings of Native American POLITICAL ACTIVISTS (and will not reveal which gatherings, or how he picked them), in California, at which he hand picked less than 100 Natives, and asked them. . . . He asked them six questions. (He will not reveal what two of the questions were, or what the results of those questions were). Do you have a source for any of these accusations? His data shows he polled 400 Native Americans (with a requirement of tribal membership) and 400 non-natives. If he only polled 100 hand-selected political activists, as you allege, then he committed academic fraud. This is a serious charge which should be backed by more than your word. The first question asked people whether the name of the Redskins was "racist OR RACIAL". (My emphasis). Every person who answered "yes", he counted as voting "racist". Not exactly, he stated the question quite explicitly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I disagree with a lot of this country's history and current policies. Am I stupid for staying here? No. It's the country I was born in and the pros outweigh the cons With this team, I don't like the name. Whatever. It's still the team that my whole family supports and has given me numerous memories over the years. The name itself or the logo or Chief Zee or whatever aren't what keeps me a fan. It's just a name. It's the players. It's the stadium. It's tailgating. It's all of that. I changed my stance on the name in the last few months. I don't see what the issue is honestly Should all African American Clippers fans switch teams? Should everyone that opposed the Reds' old racist owner have switched teams ? Not everything is black and white. You can disagree with stuff. It's ok. Don't question someone's loyalty over it I will when they keep wagging their finger at me. (which you don't do.) At least maybe an explanation as to how it's justified to hate the name, and still spend so much money to support the team using the hated name. Leaving a country is entirely different. that costs money. A lot of it. hell, moving to a house on the same street costs a lot of money and effort. Stopping season tickets or deciding not to fly out for away games is easy to do, and costs nothing. It's effortless. In fact, it's what one could call "the least one could do"... Supporting the cause you support by not supporting what the cause is trying to end... and regardless,, if you ask the founders of the movement how the average fan could help sway the name change,, stop spending money on the team is probably WAY up on the list. And i wouldn't mind being told how wearing native attire that the natives will gladly sell you is 'playing indian', and other insulting sneers. Like i've said,, the contradictions are astounding. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I get the impression your criteria for a reputable poll is one that confirms your pre-existing belief. I get the impression you like to ignore what people actually posted, and just make up things and pretend they said it, instead. Do you have a source for any of these accusations? You mean, other than the fact that the person who conducted the "Poll" said so, in his announcement of the poll, which you yourself, linked? Page 2 of the PDF. The question he asked: "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol." The data, immediately below that question counts the data as "racist name". The data, immediately below the question, also says that his total sample was 390 people, 98 of whom were "Indians" and 292 of which were "others". ---------- Ooh, it does look like some things have changed, from what I remember. He does list all of the questions, now. And his note that he chose to "sample" people at political gatherings, which I remember used to be a footnote, is now in the body of the release: (Most of this part of the survey was collected at pow-wows, so we believe it’s skewed in the direction of “pro-Indian” viewpoints. The study will have more White survey respondents soon). There's also some new things that I don't remember, from before. It gets an even bigger dose of spin. From page 1 of the PDF, where he summarizes the results of his poll: (I'm having to copy and paste from the PDF, which, for some reason, completely destroys the text flow, and then undo the destruction of the flow, so it's possible that I introduced some typos.) The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol. American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12% were neutral and 20% disagreed with the statement. Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses. The neutral category played a significant role for whites in allowing them to not be seen as “racist” – upon further analysis more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist. Now, some notes, on his summaries. His questions are consistent on asking whether the name is "racist or racial", but his summary simply presents things as "racist". But the real kicker is his closing sentence. 1) He asked 58 whites whether the name was "racial or racist" 2) The results were: Number Percent Racial/racist 19 33 Neutral 15 26 Not racial/racist 24 41 Total 58 100 3) But then he did "further analysis", in which he decided that all of the folks saying "neutral" (and some of the people saying "no") actually thought it was racist (not "racial or racist"), but they were just saying "neutral" or "no" to "not be seen as racist", and concluded that "more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist". (Even though only 33% of them actually said so, and 41% of them actually said otherwise.) He counted all of the "racial or racist" votes, all of the "neutral" votes, and some of the "not racial or racist" votes as "they think it's racist" 4) And again, note, from his closing sentence: He asked Natives of the name was "racial or racist". And concludes that all the Natives said it was "racist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/quinn-emanuel-associate-has-reservations-about-redskin-victory/ May 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM Quinn Emanuel Associate Has Reservations About ‘Redskin’ Victory Here’s a post devoted to the perils of “Reply All” and idealism among first-year associates. Brought to you by the attorneys of Quinn Emanuel. The firm just celebrated a victory in its Washington Redskins case. A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team’s name. The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge’s ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks. AmLaw Daily reports that Quinn attorney Robert Raskopf, who has been working on the case for as long it has been since the Redskins have seen a Superbowl stadium, was pretty psyched about the victory: Raskopf was in a good mood when we spoke with him about the appellate win. He’s been on the case since it started 17 years ago. “It’s a great win for the team,” said Raskopf, who had help from Quinn partner Sanford Weisburst on the brief. “I’m so happy for the Redskins and their fans.” Raskopf was so happy on Friday that he sent out a firm-wide victory e-mail. But not everybody was thrilled. After bouncing around the firm and racking up some responses, the victory chain made its way to our inbox via a tipster: This is too good not to share. This was sent to all Quinn attorneys. — The First Year Associate Who **** All Over Raskopf’s Victory Email OR The First Year Associate Who Repurposed the Redskins After the jump, see the chain that culminates in a (soon-to-be-fired?) first-year associate’s plea for idealistic litigation at Quinn. Here’s the chain: From: Robert Raskopf Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:34 AM To: Attorneys Subject: Washington Redskins Victory One of the longest-running and closely-watched battles in the annals of trademark law took a decisive turn this morning when the DC Circuit (per Sentelle, CJ, Henderson and Tatel) affirmed the ruling of trial judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that the seven Native American activists who filed a petition to cancel the Redskins’ marks on the basis of disparagement waited too long to do so. The first of the six registrations under attack in the 1992 Complaint was registered in 1967, such that the period of delay was 25 years. Rather than provide the blow-by blow, I’m sending you all the opinion of the DC Circuit (only 9 pages [PDF]). There are quite a few people here who deserve high praise for pulling off this very difficult win in an adversely politically charged atmosphere. Permit me to start with REDACTED, who authored the winning brief and whose work on these things is unmatched in my experience. But there are many more who brought this case to a wonderful finish in their own variously inimitable ways and upped the vaunted Q/E victory record along the way. They are: [REDACTED]. What a win. What a firm. Did someone say “America’s Firm”? From: FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:16 PM To: Robert Raskopf; Attorneys Subject: RE: Washington Redskins Victory okey-dokey. this email is meant neither to rouse some rabble or down some debbies or outcrunch some crunchies. quite the opposite – i get excited whenever i get victory emails (and even replies to victory emails). this is/was an interesting case that i know (well, i guess i don’t know, exactly, but i think) turned on issues not related to whether or not native americans were being slighted by the redskins mascot. but i feel compelled to the point i’m willing to write (and i’m from iowa so imposition is a slow, agonizing death) with a request that we might take a moment (water fountain break, going to nelly and claire’s shop downstairs, getting printouts) to think about how many people (native americans, americans, non-native americans, non-american natives) are bummed today because a mascot they find offensive remains on the second column of the sports page and on a kid’s hat and on espn’s score ticker (and, to a lesser extent, on cnn headline sport’s score ticker). obviously in writing this email, my end position on this matter is pretty clear, but i still, at times, try to make sense of whether or not the mascot is /that/ offensive or even that important an issue to fight. in saying that, i’m just saying i’m willing to chat about it to make sense of it, and i hope others are as well. and i’ll leave on something cheesy: it’s incredibly humbling and gratifying to work at quinn, but i really hope america’s firm will be native america’s firm as well. (that’s soooooooooooo dorky, but eh.) earnest congratulations on the win, for reals, and i hope everyone has a fun weekend! (SOON-TO-BE FIRED?) FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE From: PISSED OFF QUINN PARTNER Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:46 PM To: (SOON-TO-BE FIRED?) FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE Cc: Robert Raskopf Subject: RE: Washington Redskins Victory FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: We have not met. I am in the NY office. I sit down the hall from Bob. Calling Bob out in front of the entire firm is a poor use of the “reply to all” function. Note the lack of any parentheses in this email. It makes it much easier to read. Bob and I represent clients, not causes. We like Native Americans. If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case. But they didn’t. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple. But I digress. The real purpose of this email was to suggest that you made a mistake by sending your email to every lawyer in the firm, thus ensuring that every time someone says your name, they will think “isn’t he the first year that **** all over Raskopf’s victory email? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm with Burgold in believing that Annenberg would find a different result if the poll were asked today. And i'd suggest that if the Natives wanted to change the minds of those who are reasonable people that enjoy the team, but do not really want to hurt anyone (which is likely most of us on this particular side), then they'd commission another poll. Seems to me that it would be a slamdunk in their minds, so no fear as to the outcome in commissioning a new poll. Duplicate the old one, and ask it again. See what it says, and see the effect it may have on opinions. What's the hold up? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Interesting story about the tribe who refused Dan Snyder's money. Edit: Starts at 2:50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.