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

[Larry]

Admiring the number of people expressing the argument "the tiny number of people who are wrong will never admit they were wrong. Therefore, the many people who are right, should."

[Bang]

Has anyone noticed that as the Redskins season has gone, so has this?

This site went from an article every other day to nary a peep since the big demonstration in Green Bay went fizzle.. coincidentally with the Redskins off to a bad start.

I expect the Chiefs are next.

~Bang

[Major Harris]

Admiring the number of people expressing the argument "the tiny number of people who are wrong will never admit they were wrong. Therefore, the many people who are right, should."

I get what you are saying, but who determines right and wrong?

What would you say if they did another poll of native Americans (whose opinion is the only one that matters here) showed that the name offended 40% of them?

I would like to see another poll. I am guessing it wouldn't be tht different from the one from ten years go.

[Larry]

I get what you are saying, but who determines right and wrong?

Would you prefer the labels "truth" and "fiction"?

What would you say if they did another poll of native Americans (whose opinion is the only one that matters here) showed that the name offended 40% of them?

I would like to see another poll. I am guessing it wouldn't be tht different from the one from ten years go.

I've already said. (But I'll forgive you for not remembering).

1). I'd be amazed if the "percent offended" hasn't changed. The media has the power to alter perception, and it's been announcing that the name is offensive as though it were true, thousands of times.

2). And, while I've seen people argue that "percent offended" has to be a majority, I don't set the bar that high. I'd say that if the percentage is 20%, then it's time to punt. If it's 20%, then we've lost the PR war, and the name is GOING TO be offensive. (Frankly if the percent offended has doubled in 10 years, then I'd give very strong consideration to changing).

[Major Harris]

No, those labels don't make any difference. Ncai found it offensive almost 50 years ago. To me, that is not insignificant.

Funny, I think we almost totally agree......I just don't think you can use concrete terms such as fact and truth. I think it's a bit more open than that.

Just do another poll and shut everybody up.....yes I do realize that nothing will shut them up.

[TheGoodBits]

This is actually a very well written pro-name change article. Definitely worth a read with an open mind. http://www.buzzfeed.com/joeflood/how-the-redskins-debate-goes-over-on-an-actual-indian-reserv

[Destino]

Has anyone noticed that as the Redskins season has gone, so has this?

This site went from an article every other day to nary a peep since the big demonstration in Green Bay went fizzle.. coincidentally with the Redskins off to a bad start.

I expect the Chiefs are next.

~Bang

Cleveland Indians are up next. In part, because of this totally not offensive behavior.

[Larry]

Agree with you, it's a nice read.

I have trouble with some of the assertions he's pushing. Like the idea that the Annenberg poll is off by a factor of 10, AND that even his number under-reports the number offended, or his assertion that the correct way to judge whether the phrase "the Washington Redskins" is offensive, is to take the word "Redskins" out of it, carry that word into a different phrase, and pretend it was used over there.

BUT, that doesn't mean his points are invalid, either.

(And I endorse people reading the article. I don't think it changed my mind. But I am glad I read it.)

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Cleveland Indians are up next. In part, because of this totally not offensive behavior.

 

 

Something about the Indians logo strikes me as not right:

 

 

And how do people feel about Braves fans and their whole "tomahawk chop" thing?

[skinsmarydu]

Something about the Indians logo strikes me as not right:

 

And how do people feel about Braves fans and their whole "tomahawk chop" thing?

Braves got beat last night...not enough choppin' goin' on, imo.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Braves got beat last night...not enough choppin' goin' on, imo.

 

Turn that frown upside down. That's wonderful news. Hopefully they "chop" themselves straight to a 3 game sweep. You know, like they've 18 of the last 20 years (or whatever)

[grego]

 Ncai found it offensive almost 50 years ago.

 

 

the president of the NCAI in the late 60's essentially designed the redskins logo, and said that people offended by the name were radicals. 

 

wacky.

[RFKFedEx]

I find it Interesting to learn the Annenberg survey of 2004 asked respondents to self ID if they were Native. Roughly 8.5% of respondents claimed Native ethnicity, which is well above the actual percentage of the US population, esp. in the lower 48 states. Residents of Alaska and Hawaii were excluded from that survey.

 

 

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

[grego]

I find it Interesting to learn the Annenberg survey of 2004 asked respondents to self ID if they were Native. Roughly 8.5% of respondents claimed Native ethnicity, which is well above the actual percentage of the US population, esp. in the lower 48 states. Residents of Alaska and Hawaii were excluded from that survey.

 

 

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

 

 

8.5%?

 

In that period 65,047 adults were interviewed, of whom 768 identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans.

[TheGoodBits]

Agree with you, it's a nice read.

I have trouble with some of the assertions he's pushing. Like the idea that the Annenberg poll is off by a factor of 10, AND that even his number under-reports the number offended, or his assertion that the correct way to judge whether the phrase "the Washington Redskins" is offensive, is to take the word "Redskins" out of it, carry that word into a different phrase, and pretend it was used over there.

BUT, that doesn't mean his points are invalid, either.

(And I endorse people reading the article. I don't think it changed my mind. But I am glad I read it.)

The one thing I wish is that the writer had further dug into why the Natives wearing Redskins gear were. It was very briefly touched on but brushed off as irrelevant. That is my key holdup on this issue. I personally know Natives that are Redskins fans BECAUSE of the name/logo and not despite it, and I know that you see a lot of Redskins fans among the Native population. I have no idea what % are openly offended, what % are offended but don't care to press the issue, what % aren't offended, and what % actually see the name and logo as a source of pride. That's the key issue in this debate IMO and while this writer started to touch on it, there was also a bit of a missed opportunity as well.

[RFKFedEx]

 

8.5%?

 

In that period 65,047 adults were interviewed, of whom 768 identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans.

 

yep, my math was way off. I'll take my medicine now.   

[Bang]

Early morning. Chalk it up to lack of caffeine.

~Bang

[Major Harris]

the president of the NCAI in the late 60's essentially designed the redskins logo, and said that people offended by the name were radicals. 

 

wacky.

Can you cite that?

[Larry]

I see lots of people trying to brush off the Annenberg survey on the grounds that they asked people what race they were.

My initial reactions are.

1). Well, I suppose that attacking the survey without any actual support is better than the folks who simply pretend that it diesnt exist.

2). And, as far as I'm aware, people have been conducting surveys in which the person being interviewed provides his own demographic information, such as age, gender, race, political affiliation, and lots of other properties. And nobody tries to claim that doing so makes THEM completely invalid.

And let's be honest. To try to claim that Annenberg should be completely dismissed, you have to assume that there were 10 liars for every True Scottsman. (Yes, that's a reference to something).

And, I have to point out: the actual question which Annenberg asked included something along the lines of "as a Native American, do you feel that".

Meaning that they were asked about their race BEFORE they were asked about the Redskins.

In short, to assert that Annenberg was skewed by Redskins supporters lying about their race, you have to assume that hundreds of people lied about their race, because of a question that they hadn't been asked, yet.

[grego]

Can you cite that?

 

 

1) what part?

 

2) would it matter?

[Major Harris]

1) what part?

 

2) would it matter?

either of them.

and yes, it is interesting considering the NCAI launched a public awareness campaign in 1968 against the name.

[grego]

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/american-indians-among-admirers-of.html

 

 Indian players from the time considered the name and trappings an honor.

So does Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s. By the early ‘60s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. Wetzel went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress.

“I said, ‘I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,’” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo, remembers Wetzel, now 86 and retired in Montana. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”

[Major Harris]

thanks. very interesting.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Grego, that's a great find and I don't mean this to single you out at all. It seems like anyone on either side could find 5-10 documented cases of a Native American who supports their point of view. It's purely anecdotal in both directions.

 

So-and-so in 1971 thinks the name is offensive and refers to Native Americans being hunted and scalped. So-and-so in 1975 referred to the name as a symbol of pride.

 

I don't know what my point is (again, it's NOT to really comment on your contribution to the thread at all), but it just seems like there would need to be something more scientific. That way they could come to some agreed upon baseline percentage of truly impacted people (Native Americans) who are offended.

[grego]

Grego, that's a great find and I don't mean this to single you out at all. It seems like anyone on either side could find 5-10 documented cases of a Native American who supports their point of view. It's purely anecdotal in both directions.

 

So-and-so in 1971 thinks the name is offensive and refers to Native Americans being hunted and scalped. So-and-so in 1975 referred to the name as a symbol of pride.

 

I don't know what my point is (again, it's NOT to really comment on your contribution to the thread at all), but it just seems like there would need to be something more scientific. That way they could come to some agreed upon baseline percentage of truly impacted people (Native Americans) who are offended.

 

 

i agree. a thorough scientific poll would be the best way to know how native americans feel about the name. my post was in response to majors about the NCAI.

 

i find it interesting that the NCAI apparently took issue with the name in 1968 when wetzel, their leader just 4 years before, felt so differently about it and at about that same time, was working with the redskins on a new logo. 

 

i find it interesting that native american high school use a 'racial slur' as their mascot. 

 

i find it interesting that everyone who wants the name changed hates the annenburg poll (not actually directed at you, RFK, moreso at those who theorize about its lack of authenticity without actually providing proof of such).

 

i find it interesting that two of the most prominent name change voices- harjo and blackhorse- continue to spread their story about the origin of the name, despite it being patently false, and nobody dares question them about it. 

 

i find it interesting that i havent read a thing about this since we've started 1-3.

 

clearly, i find alot of things interesting.