Kosher Ham Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Agreed. No one stated that he broke rules at any point. The hypocrisy is seemingly there though. If I was so against something on that level...I would not support it in any way ( clicks, six figures, etc..) doesn't add up. Almost trollish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 One of the leading critics of the Redskins: (From his own Facebook page) An American Indian leader and outspoken opponent of the Washington Redskins’ team name reportedly (confirmed, see Facebook pic above) dressed up in blackface for Halloween. Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona, posted a Facebook picture of himself as Jamaican reggae star Bob Marley, complete with a dreadlocks wig and blackface makeup, the New York Post reported. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/terry-rambler-apache-leader-offended-by-redskins-n/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have the right to say so or express his opinions. I thought Elk was pointing out the hypocrisy in his arguments. Kind of an example of that in his paragraph below, IMO. No one said you broke a rule. No, they simply told him that he's a hypocrite if he posts here. Because he objects to the name. And are continuing to defend that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 It was a very poor decision by Rambler, but he was trying to make a point. In fact, he's referenced this clown several times: Still it's wrong on both levels. Rambler is wrong and so is the idiot in the aforementioned image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 If you want to believe he was trying to make a point, please be that naive. He did something incredibly stupid and instead of acknowledging it he immediately started deflecting blame. It's a joke. And for Christ sakes stop posting the picture of that idiot that painted himself up like that. Sometimes I feel like people do that just to troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 If you want to believe he was trying to make a point, please be that naive. He did something incredibly stupid and instead of acknowledging it he immediately started deflecting blame. It's a joke. And for Christ sakes stop posting the picture of that idiot that painted himself up like that. Sometimes I feel like people do that just to troll. I posted that disgusting image because some folks in this thread are still in denial. And Rambler has apologized profusely as he should. Very poor judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I posted that disgusting image because some folks in this thread are still in denial. And Rambler has apologized profusely as he should. Very poor judgement. Rambler apologized because he was taken to task over it. If there wasn't any backlash he wouldn't have given a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Rambler apologized because he was taken to task over it. If there wasn't any backlash he wouldn't have given a ****. Perhaps but aren't most public apologies the result of public backlash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Wearing a fake headdress to celebrate football in 2015 is akin to blackface comedy in 1955. Still ok for national tv audiences, but not for much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Agreed. No one stated that he broke rules at any point. The hypocrisy is seemingly there though. If I was so against something on that level...I would not support it in any way ( clicks, six figures, etc..) doesn't add up. Almost trollish. he can't be for a name change, and still support the team? who set that rule? -------- my wife has really long hair right now, but i kinda liked it better back when it was shorter.... kickin her ass to the curb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 he can't be for a name change, and still support the team? who set that rule? Why after over 30 years of support would anyone encourage and be an advocate of a name change ? Then at the same time be a member of a board that is that name ? I would not sign up to a Klan message board and post for nearly a decade on such a board, because I completely disagreed with their premise. I am not stating it as a rule...simply an opinion. I don't know about you, but I see the logo and name every time I click on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 and yet here i am ... on a board that directly benefits Dan Snyder. if i had to choose, i would lose both Snyder, and the name. If i had to prioritize, i would lose Snyder and THEN the name. Neither is an option that i have been given the authority to make. sadly. (actually, i would lose Snyder first, then Larry Michaels, and THEN the name..... ) But... i'll not that YOU are the one that is trying to equate the use of the term Redskin with the Ku Klux Klan... i certainly ddon;t believe that the two are equivalent, but if you do... then what the hell are YOU doing here?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 This is why I don't discuss this issue on this board anymore. Personal attacks. People who don't understand the meaning of hypocrisy accusing other people of being hypocrites. General vitriol. There is too much emotional investment here, and no one here is going to change their mind. Might as well go down to the Sons of Confederate Veterans website and try to explain to them why putting the Dixie Flag on a state capitol is no longer a good idea. I would not sign up to a Klan message board and post for nearly a decade on such a board, because I completely disagreed with their premise. I am not stating it as a rule...simply an opinion. I don't know about you, but I see the logo and name every time I click on this site. What a terrible argument. I don't disagree with the "premise" of my favorite football team. I disagree with the outmoded name of that team. I want MY team to be even better and still be my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Prioritizing... Larry M. would be gone first. haha. YOU are misunderstanding what I am saying. Perhaps because I am a NA and have zero problem with the name ? Not to mention if, YOU are trying to claim that I am racist...way out of the spectrum of reality. Really? If you are so offended by something...why root for them for DECADES ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 ----- actually, i would lose Snyder first, then lose FedEx Field, then lose Larry Michaels, and THEN lose the name..... if i had any juice left i don't care much about the name issue. but i feel like the boulder has started rolling down the hill, and i don;t see it getting stopped. The fact is that whetehr the name is offensive or not isn't a stationary target. it is offensive if people are offended by it, it is more offensive if more people are offended, or if individually people that are offended are more offended. it doesn't matter WHY those things happen, or WHEN they happened, it only matters where you end up. it just so happens that some people were lightly offended by the name all along, but it doesn;t really appear as if enough were offended, or enough offended to reach some impossible to define "critical mass of offense" .... and then some people started making disingenuous and/or misleading arguments why the name should be considered offensive.... and (it appears, but i don;t have proof) that some more people were convinced (or more convinced), and then other people brutishly defended the name, and (it appears) yet more people were convinced (or more convinced)... and then as more people (appeared) to be offended, that (appears) to have been enough to have convinced even more people to be convinced (or more convinced). so .. we could've stayed at the point where the name was considered "edgy", but not **really** offensive for ever.... but (it doesn;t appear) that we did so.... the boulder (appears to be) rolling, and gatehring momentum and if the boulder moves fast enough, or far enough, it doesn;t matter anymore that it started rolling because of a disingenuous shove. i don;t know for sure if the boulder HAS moved far enough (since that is impossible to define) or even if it has moved at all (since that is hard to pin down), but i know for a fact that the boulder is making a lot more noise, which certainly makes it appear as if it is moving faster, and the noise itself is a distraction and, very frankly, the loud (and sometimes shrill) noises of defense of the name are in many ways the MOST distracting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 This is why I don't discuss this issue on this board anymore. Personal attacks. People who don't understand the meaning of hypocrisy accusing other people of being hypocrites. General vitriol. What a terrible argument. I don't disagree with the "premise" of my favorite football team. I disagree with the outmoded name of that team. I want MY team to be even better and still be my team. Hmm... Break it down for me if you feel like it. I have not attacked anyone, simply defended and giving an opinion from my point of view as a NA and a Redskins fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Hmm... Break it down for me if you feel like it. I laid it out back on page two of this 285 page thread. "I really don't think anyone cares about the logo or the Native American imagery. 99 percent of the complaints are about how the word "Redskin" generally is considered an offensive way to refer to Native Americans. All the dictionaries agree. Regardless of whether it was intitially intended to be a slur when the team started, regardless of whether we intend it that way as fans of the team, regardless of whether you can draw a conceptual distinction between "redskin" in reference to football players and "redskin" in reference to actual Native Americans, ultimately this problem remains. The term "redskin" has passed its historical due date and gone sour, just like the terms "wench," and "fag" and "colored boy" and so on. I don't see how the problem is going to go away. " a page later I wrote: "I don't know exactly how the word Redskin developed into a derogatory term over the decades, but it definitely happened. In another thread I checked over 20 dictionaries. Every single one of them defined the word "redskin" as an offensive or insensitive archaic way to refer to Native Americans. Check it for yourself. http://www.onelook.com/?w=redskin&ls=a Our good intent is not really the point. Just like talking about "colored boys" has become insensitive, the word redskin has become insensitive, IMO." I think that sums it up pretty well. 285 pages of people ranting against political correctness, feeling persecuted, and cursing Susan Harjo has not put a dent in my views on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Yet not by most NA's including myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Yet not by most NA's including myself. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The few polls on the issue are not exactly comprehensive or definitive. I suspect that most NAs simply have bigger things to worry about. I have a black friend who told me that there is a large percentage of black people that don't list being identified as "colored" as a particularly high concern in their lives, but if pressed they pretty much all agree that it would not be their preference. On the other hand, they don't care at all about changing the name of the NAACP. So it can get subtle. Me, I'm not black (or NA) and I don't think I can stand perfectly in either of their shoes. So it is enough for me to see that SOME non-negligible percentage of NAs don't like the name, and ALL of the dictionaries describe it as an outmoded word and a slur, and I go with that. Why fight it? Contrary to the attitudes of some on this board, we're not really saving Western Civilization and the honor of America by defending the use of the word Redskin to the death. And even if it would be ultra satisfying to punch Susan Harjo in the mouth (it would), it still doesn't mean that I need to defend the outmoded nickname of my favorite team just to spite her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 he can't be for a name change, and still support the team? who set that rule? -------- my wife has really long hair right now, but i kinda liked it better back when it was shorter.... kickin her ass to the curb! I'm not sure anyone has actually said that. I think people are just pointing out the hypocrisy in his post. He open advocates to change the name and that the name should be changed while not typing the actual name. Then, he posts about how he's never missed a game, does this and does that as far as the team goes. Going to the games with "Redskins" on the ticket stub, "Redskins" on the parking pass, "Redskins" all over the stadium or hearing them say "first down Redskins" over the loudspeakers, just seems a little hypocritical. If someone truly felt 100% about something you would think that they would stop supporting it. (Again, not saying he can't, it just doesn't jibe). This may not be an apt analogy. I think a lot of posters have tried to use analogies, only to get shotdown, but I'll give it a try anyway. It would be like going to a PETA rally to protest hunting deer, then going to the store to buy a pound of hamburger. Nobody is saying that our fans can't feel or think the word is slur and needs to be changed while still rooting for the team. Like you and Predicto, you guys think it should be changed, but you aren't in the thread posting rallies (he did) against the name. You aren't in here every other day trying to change the minds of others who still stand by the name. That is basically what some are just trying to say. He can say and do what he wants- free country. Some are just pointing out that what he believes with what he does is askew. To Add: In my almost 50 years alive, I've never heard anyone use the word "Redskin" as a slur. I've heard "Chief" or "Injun" more. I grew up in So. MD where there are a lot of different NA tribes within the DMV and I'd never heard "Redskin" used with the exception of a description of the NFL franchise. And I've been around my grandparents and others of their generation who were pretty big racists. Every hispanic was a "mexican." All blacks were "n*****s", not to mention disparaging anyone Jewish according to them. Glad I evolved and never got into that. Not saying the word has never been used that way as I'm sure it has, but I've never heard it. I did hear "Blanket Ass" one time from someone. Anyway, as someone who doesn't want the name to go away, I guess my number would be 49. When only 49% of all people (NA included) say they approve of the name, that shows me that 51% do not and it's time to change it. Majority rules IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Are you still trying to push the notion that anybody who thinks the name should be changed should be personally attacked if they say so, here? Just an opinion, but that seems to be both a really dumb argument, and one that makes all of us look really ugly. Clearly I am because I obviously attack every single person who posts in here against the name and don't use any reasoned arguments. Just an opinion, but you get worse in tone more often than I do so I wouldn't be casting judgement on that basis if I were you. Sorry. What it is, is "Like the name or get out". Wrapped in self righteousness. Again, just my opinion (I have no authority to speak for the board, the team, or anybody else), but I believe that yes, people who think the name is a problem, have the right to say so. On this board, and in this thread. It's one thing to point out that their arguments suck. (When they do. Which seems to be almost all of the time.) It's another matter entirely to try to tell them that they're not allowed to express them. 1. I never said anyone wasn't allowed to express a different opinion 2. Continually claiming the name is morally wrong and should be changed, and even posting that you agree it causes psychological damage to NAs, but still rooting for the team AND supporting it financially fits the very definition of hypocrisy. You're welcome to pretend like you don't understand why a hypocrite fan is being called out on this issue, but me thinks you get it and are just trying to play contrarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 There's no pretending Elk. I know what I believe and I know what I love. I've attended 180+ games since 1982, I've posted 10k+ times at ES since 2006, my family has easily spent into the six figures in pursuit of all things R*****s over the decades. I'll be a fan as long as the B&G is in the DMV. Sorry, but I aint leavin. When and if I violate ES rules, the staff will notify me accordingly. That's fine. I'm just curious as to who an offended activist Native American would be madder at: me for supporting the name in full with lots of reasoned evidence to support, or you who gives lip service that you agree with him/her, but are still supporting the team financially every single day. It's like saying "yes black people, I agree that restaurant shouldn't make you eat out back or just not serve you at all, but I'm still going to eat there every single day anyway." All it says is that, in the end, the most action you'll take is giving lip service, because your self-interest outweighs your moral outrage, and that speaks volumes about the true level of care you have for their cause. So much easier to put asterisks over Redskins than actually end financial support of the team and take an actual stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Wearing a fake headdress to celebrate football in 2015 is akin to blackface comedy in 1955. Still ok for national tv audiences, but not for much longer. Now this I completely agree with. I've pointed out that more charities have been a silver lining in this debate and I think this post hits on the other positive, which is that it has increased awareness. Although I disagree with the overarching argument against all NA imagery in sports, it has at least helped quell some of the things that are more offensive to an actual majority of NAs, including wearing headdresses at games and that cartoonish Cleveland Indians logo. he can't be for a name change, and still support the team? who set that rule? -------- my wife has really long hair right now, but i kinda liked it better back when it was shorter.... kickin her ass to the curb! So you think it's perfectly fine to continually claim moral outrage to the team name, that it is racist and offensive to NAs, and post bits about it causing psychological damage to NAs, yet still support the team financially through site traffic, games, etc.? How do you think a NA name-protester would feel about that? Why fight it? . Because they are wrong and use historical fabrications to back their point. And that falsehood would forever taint the team just the same as how Marshall's racist stuff is 99% what people talk about with him and his significant contributions to the league are entirely discarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 That's fine. I'm just curious as to who an offended activist Native American would be madder at: me for supporting the name in full with lots of reasoned evidence to support, or you who gives lip service that you agree with him/her, but are still supporting the team financially every single day. It's like saying "yes black people, I agree that restaurant shouldn't make you eat out back or just not serve you at all, but I'm still going to eat there every single day anyway." All it says is that, in the end, the most action you'll take is giving lip service, because your self-interest outweighs your moral outrage, and that speaks volumes about the true level of care you have for their cause. So much easier to put asterisks over Redskins than actually end financial support of the team and take an actual stand. This comes pretty close to what I think about it as well. It's seems that if I find something really objectionable then I wouldn't support it. Not sure how it legitimately coexists.What's even better are the folks who find it objectionable but make money from covering it. It all seems pretty attention whoreish to me. To borrow the argument used by name changers....would you attend a game of the Washington N-words? By season tickets? And the scratch the righteous itch by posting on a message board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Perhaps. Perhaps not. The few polls on the issue are not exactly comprehensive or definitive. I suspect that most NAs simply have bigger things to worry about. This, I don't understand. Larry, for one, has done a nice job defending the annenberg poll and explaining why it is accurate. And the guy who ran it, Adam Clymer, is personally against the name, yet stands behind it 100%. "Adam Clymer, political director of the survey in 2004 and former chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, said the size of the survey made it possible to find out what American Indians thought about the question. “Every year there would be some degree of controversy over the name of the Washington Redskins. People would say, Indians thought this or, no, they didn’t. I knew we had a big enough survey so that even with the tiny percentage of Native Americans who responded we’d have enough to talk about.” Yet, every once in awhile, people still throw out "the poll is flawed" as a reason to ignore it. Strange stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.