PCS Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Bang. Of that there is no doubt. No matter what the reasons,there would be a difference in poll results for sure.I think a bunch of us here agreed to that earlier on as well. I've largely stayed away from this thread because after awhile,I felt like in the back and forth with people,I was talking around some of those to this is all about. Native Americans. Still do actually. I have no real stake in this except the name of the team. I'm like Bang it's the how that does concern me. I've lived out here in the West for 28 years. I've had my share of interactions with Native Americans,especially members of the Ute and Washoe tribes. Discussed history and so forth and yes,the Redskins name. Never not once did any of them say anything about the name being offensive,(especially the ones who were either wearing Redskins gear or who declared them being their favorite team). Only person who's ever had a problem with it was a 30's white guy in Park City and his opinion I could give a **** about. All that said,I am aware that there are Native Americans who do find the name offensive. While sympathetic to that,I'm more sympathetic to the feelings expressed by a friend of mine who is a member of the Washoe Tribe Gardnerville. I shared this earlier and I'll do so again. When this whole name thing was brought up amongst a group of us,(not by me),he rolled his eyes and,with a great deal of colorful language involved,went on a bit of a rant about how it was a name of a football team and nothing else. He then went on and said basically "You white people. Can't leave us alone can you? How about you let us figure this out? We've got enough **** to worry about besides a name of a team." He's a Niners fan. Apparently 3 favorite teams amongst the members there. Niners,Raiders,and the Redskins. That's where I'm at. Let Native Americans,(as a whole),decide this. They decide amongst themselves about the name,(and even some other things),and if they do come out with a negative on the name,I'm good. I'll be right there in the front of the line saying change the name. It's their call not mine,(realizing I'm probably guilty of talking around those Native Americans again so I'm out again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 That's where I'm at. Let Native Americans,(as a whole),decide this. They decide amongst themselves about the name,(and even some other things),and if they do come out with a negative on the name,I'm good. I'll be right there in the front of the line saying change the name. It's their call not mine,(realizing I'm probably guilty of talking around those Native Americans again so I'm out again). That's where I've been the last couple years as well. Let them decide. Not a bunch of Social Justice Warriors, who will then just move on to the next thing. If you really care about helping the Native Americans, there are more ways to do that that don't involve changing the names of sports teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Interesting story about the tribe who refused Dan Snyder's money. Not sure what is so nefarious here, OAF has stated that this is what they do, and if someone wants to turn them down that is their right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 According to BossHogg, a German soccer team called, say, the Munich Nazis would not be offensive because Nazi is not a racial slur. right that's exactly what I said SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 And I really love the assertion that the descendents of vikings aren't vikings (because they don't wear horns on their heads any more). And that the descendants of the Celts aren't celts any more, because they don;t speak Celtic any more. But that the descendants of Natives are Natives, not "descendants of Natives". (For some unspecified reasons.) That's some real high class logic, there. Doesn't the issue always come back to cultural appropriation. Whether there are descendants of Vikings or Celts is irrelevant to the fact that there are no real Viking or Celt communities in existence now - unless you count the chubby girls with bad tattoos who go to Irish festivals. While I think the term is a slur, I've always thought the argument over the etymology has been somewhat misguided and is basically a forest for the trees situation. But I'm sure I made that argument 100 pages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 right that's exactly what I said SMH Actually, yeah, you pretty much did. Every single time you tried to defend the names Vikings and Celtics because they weren't RACES. (In your opinion). Yeah, he's exaggerating your position. But not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 In defense of Boss Hog (which given today's climate about the Dukes of Hazzard is an ironic name given the cause he's championing) I think we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the polls he has presented for us. Yes, they need to be analyzed for validity threats and other weaknesses, but we should consider the data itself. In seeing Larry's critique of the poll, the Oliver twist in me says, "Please sir, can I have some more!" but I do think that the strengths as well as weaknesses of the poll needs to be considered. I'm not sure yet it is a complete junk poll. It may be enough to point us in some directions worthy of research and discussion. In any case, it's a far superior argument than, "It's offensive because I said so!" This is a hard mountain for any Redskins' fan to climb because we've invested a ton of energy into this team. Even more energy because it's harder to be a fan when your team is losing a lot. Now, none of us want to be fans of something racist because that stink might rub on off on us. I'd argue that very few if any choose the Redskins as their team for racist reasons (not that that's being argued) Still, at least someone in the anti-camp has done some verifiable research. The next step is to do some good, scientifically and statistically sound research. I do think that Boss Hog for doing his homework. One warning, just as he is worried about us telling others what offends Native Americans. I'm also worried about the other side speaking for, but not with Native Americans. The poll represents at least a step in the right direction and therefore gets us a little closer to an answer... just as the Annenburg and other polls have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Actually, yeah, you pretty much did. Every single time you tried to defend the names Vikings and Celtics because they weren't RACES. (In your opinion). Yeah, he's exaggerating your position. But not much. huge reach from zoony and it's upsetting that he used a group of fascists in his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Doesn't the issue always come back to cultural appropriation. Whether there are descendants of Vikings or Celts is irrelevant to the fact that there are no real Viking or Celt communities in existence now - unless you count the chubby girls with bad tattoos who go to Irish festivals. While I think the term is a slur, I've always thought the argument over the etymology has been somewhat misguided and is basically a forest for the trees situation. But I'm sure I made that argument 100 pages ago. Really? There aren't any Viking or Celtic communities in, say, Norway or Scotland? (Or whichever countries now encompass those former regions). Yes, I understand that there are very few people, today, who make their living by rowing an oversized canoe to go raid and pillage English villages. But does the fact that the lifestyle in those places, has changed over the years, mean that the people don't exist any more? (And, if you really want to insist that that's the case, should I point out that the Natives don't live the way they did, 200 years ago, either?) ---------- As to the word's origins, should I point out that, as far as I'm aware, the only time it's ever been brought up, has been in response to people trying to claim an UNTRUE etymology? I agree with you, the word's origin has no relevance to whether it's offensive, TODAY. (Except to people who have swallowed, or are pushing, a myth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Since we're off on the same ol' same ol', i'll ask again. Why no ire towards the Buffalo Bills? It's kind of funny that googling "buffalo bills name controversy" just brings up protests againt the Redskins. Awful to be worried about a word when there's a team named after the guy who did as much as anyone ever could to destroy the native way of life. A direct homage to a genocidal participant and exploiter of those who's lives he ruined... and crickets. ~Bang give it up, you won't ever get a response. They don't have one. Mainly because they're hypocrites. But ignorance plays a large part, too. And by the way, Texas Ranger is far more offensive than Buffalo Bill. And don't you understand? Buffalo Bill rescued Indians from the reservations, and turned them into circus acts (which he sold tickets to), out of his deep respect for the people, and their race as a whole. Not like Marshall and his exploitative football team. I'm good. I'm not using them to back an argument. You might want to check. Note: The Buffalo Bill Museum may have an interesting time with clarification. Yesterday I pulled a passage from the a .ORG website about William Cody's relationship with Native Americans. My examples were mocked, ridiculed, and labeled as revisionist history by some in this thread. I promised everyone I would reach out to the museum for clarification...here's the reply: Feel free to hit up Steve if you disagree. From: Friesen, Steve - Parks&Rec [mailto:Steve.Friesen@denvergov.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:36 PM To: Shearer, Zach Subject: RE: Questions about William Cody "Buffalo Bill" Zachary, There is ample documentation about Buffalo Bill’s good relationship with the Indians (my Indian friends prefer that term to Native Americans). During the Indian Wars he was a scout for the Army and, as such, fought the Indians. But the context of the day was that it was a war situation and it was kill or be killed. Even in that situation he probably only killed two or three Indians. After the Indian Wars were over, Buffalo Bill became a friend to the Indians and an advocate for their rights. The quote we use on our web page I first learned of from Vine Deloria Jr., who wrote “Custer Died for Your Sins” and was an admirer of Buffalo Bill. It was originally in an interview in the Detroit Free Press, July 27, 1896. He spoke out on behalf of the Indians’ rights and arranged with members of his show to meet with American presidents when in Washington to advocate for their people. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West did not exploit the Indians but actually gave them great opportunities to leave the reservation (where life was pretty impoverished) and earn money re-enacting their culture. He paid them quite well and looked after their needs as they confronted cultures that were alien to them (e.g. in Europe). It was a time when government policy was aimed at destroying the Lakota culture and the Wild West gave them a chance to preserve and present it. L.G. Moses has pointed this out in his book “Wild West Shows and the Images of American Indians.” I have a book being considered by University of Oklahoma Press where I go even further into the important role that the wild west shows (not only Buffalo Bill’s show) played in helping preserve and advocate for Lakota culture. My other book “Buffalo Bill: Scout, Showman, Visionary” gets into this somewhat as well. Buffalo Bill knew and employed Sitting Bull, Short Bull (one of the leaders of the Ghost Dance), Iron Tail, Sam Lone Bear, Luther Standing Bear, Dewey Beard, and other leaders among the Lakota. Iron Tail was one of his closest friends. This was not a man who slaughtered Indians during the wars nor a man who exploited them after the wars. He became friends to his former enemies and often spoke with great respect about them. Steve Steve Friesen | Director Buffalo Bill Museum/Parks and Recreation | City and County of Denver 303-526-0744 Phone Steve.Friesen@denvergov.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Really? There aren't any Viking or Celtic communities in, say, Norway or Scotland? (Or whichever countries now encompass those former regions). Oh for Christ's sake..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Oh for Christ's sake..... I'm pretty sure he would have been from the middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Doesn't the issue always come back to cultural appropriation. Whether there are descendants of Vikings or Celts is irrelevant to the fact that there are no real Viking or Celt communities in existence now - unless you count the chubby girls with bad tattoos who go to Irish festivals. While I think the term is a slur, I've always thought the argument over the etymology has been somewhat misguided and is basically a forest for the trees situation. But I'm sure I made that argument 100 pages ago. It can be argued that the Redskins symbol does not represent present day Native Americans, but is rather a nod to the past, evoking nomadic tribes that followed buffalo herds (and here we get into the issue of the symbol being a depiction of plains tribe member as opposed to southeastern). Most present day NAs don't appear that way on a daily basis. Pittsburgh Pirates does not really bring up the notion of Somali pirates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Interesting reply,, however, i can't help but note that the War situation Bill was in was one of aggressor, and as such the 'kill or be killed' situation could have been avoided by not going to war to steal native lands... and giving those people a 'chance to preserve' their heritage after destroying it is something of salt in the wound. I get the museum is in business to preserve his legend, but in context of the Natives, it's not good.. whether he had 'indian friends" or not. i do appreciate the effort in reaching out to them and posting their response. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Wild bill only killed 2 or 3 Indians? Boss, i too appreciate your effort on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Wild bill only killed 2 or 3 Indians? It wouldn't shock me. Although I strongly suspect that probably 90% of what we "know" about the Wild West is simply Urban Legend Consensus. Now, how many buffalo did he kill? (As part of an intentional plan to starve the Indians)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Like I said,(and I too appreciate the reach out to the museum),they would have a tough time with clarification. I admit I should have been more specific and said clarifying his time as a scout for the Army and such. Which,they didn't do too well. They really have no idea and that's not all their fault when you think about it. He killed 2 for sure. One he dramatized in his show,(scalp and all),and one was part of the engagement,(he was involved in 16 all together),that got him the Medal of Honor. That he was friends with those in the statement isn't in doubt I don't believe,as several of them have statements on record about Bill. Anyway. Like I said,before,time to bow out again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 That letter from the museum sounded like pure propaganda to me. Lot of shoe polish and whitewash being used in that version of history. He didn't exploit Native Americans, but gave them well paying jobs sounds a lot like the stuff said about every exploited group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 LOL whatever guys. I'm done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 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 It's called movies/tv/music - happens all the time except in a different format (for all races) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 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 Objectively speaking, the Redskins logo does not conjure an image of violent warriors in my mind. It's not a particularly aggressive image at all. What's "war like" about it. Maybe if we reverted to the spear logo you could say it was war like or violent, but our logo is no more violent than George Washington's profile on a quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I agree with the above - if it offends Native Americans then poll them and see what the results are. Things are offensive to some but if it offends you then it's not meant for you. It doesn't offend everyone. Hell, I'm offended by a number of things but I know others have a different perception and view point. If we want to go down this road then I'm sure I can find a rap song that calls out white people. I'm offended so I want it removed. I find it offensive that there is a channel called Black Entertainment Television but there not a White Entertainment Television channel or the other all black organizations and there's not any all white organizations. I want you all to open these up to whites and other races and the names changed. There's a whole long road this can go down. Sensitive much? I'll retract the 'sensitive much' once a poll comes back that more than 10-15% of Native Americans are offended, until then not budging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 If we want to go down this road then I'm sure I can find a rap song that calls out white people. I'm offended so I want it removed. I find it offensive that there is a channel called Black Entertainment Television but there not a White Entertainment Television channel or the other all black organizations and there's not any all white organizations. I want you all to open these up to whites and other races and the names changed. There's a whole long road this can go down. Sensitive much? I'll retract the 'sensitive much' once a poll comes back that more than 10-15% of Native Americans are offended, until then not budging. If that's how you feel Steve, that's how you feel man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I wouldn't take the buffalo bill museums word for anything about buffalo bill anymore than I'd take take the Catholic church's word on pedophile priests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I see a lot of of nonsense from the "offended" side of the argument, and a few things I see as legit. I see a lot of ugly and dumbass from the defend the name side, and plenty of stuff i think is legit. I personally still love the name and the imagery, though I have always thought the "dress up like an Indian" fans do went from misplaced/poor taste if innocently so (i.e. our beloved Chief Z), to outright dumb and insulting in many cases--but It was just not a big deal at all to me. I think I'm getting more calm about it (if the name is changed) versus my initially quite strong negative reaction --the how and why given will play large there, but still think it would be very unfortunate and still mostly dumb overall. And I'm far from any "it's a serious travesty/injustice/major issue" stance at this point. I still think much of the "offended" position is weak and even worse in some manifestations. I also share a bit of the "shut up, you non NA's" feeling reactions at times, but then I tend to think the same way at times when men weigh in on what women can/should do with their bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.