Kosher Ham Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Good points Larry. I have family members in NY, NC, TN, VA, etc. Surely, with all of the mail I get and via e-mail... Not a peep to ask me or my family about our opinion of the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Where is the link ? http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/cph-t/cph-t-6.html?cssp=SERP Table 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 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. No it effing isn't. Staying within a group or organization that you love while attempting to get it to change one thing that you think is a negative about the group or organization is not hypocrisy. It is how things usually get changed for the better - from within. Saying the name should be changed while you yourself continue to call Native Americans "Redskins" in your private life would be hypocrisy. Saying the name should be changed while you wear a Chief Wahoo baseball cap would be hypocrisy. There are lots of ways to be a hypocrite. This is not one of them. I feel like the term hypocrite is thrown around too easily by those who simply don't want to hear a dissenting opinion from one of their own clan. It is much easier to pretend that the only people who want to change the name are dishonest hacks like Susan Harjo and the dupes that have fallen for her lies, than it is to accept that people who are fans of the team and who actually know EVERYTHING about this team and its name and its history nevertheless still disagree with you about whether the name should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 No it effing isn't. Staying within a group or organization that you love while attempting to get it to change one thing that you think is a negative about the group or organization is not hypocrisy. It is how things usually get changed for the better - from within. Saying the name should be changed while you yourself continue to call Native Americans "Redskins" in your private life would be hypocrisy. Saying the name should be changed while you wear a Chief Wahoo baseball cap would be hypocrisy. There are lots of ways to be a hypocrite. This is not one of them. I feel like the term hypocrite is thrown around too easily by those who simply don't want to hear a dissenting opinion from one of their own clan. It is much easier to pretend that the only people who want to change the name are dishonest hacks like Susan Harjo and the dupes that have fallen for her lies, than it is to accept that people who are fans of the team and who actually know EVERYTHING about this team and its name and its history nevertheless still disagree with you about whether the name should be changed. Yes it effing is. Continuing to support something that you believe is racist, morally wrong, and have even posted stuff saying it causes psychological harm, is hypocrisy. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too. This isn't some argument where a poster is saying they think the name is antiquated and should change with the times. This is an argument that the name is racist and harmful. So supporting the team financially while also claiming that argument, is hypocrisy. Definition: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform -and his behavior, supporting the team, does not conform to his moral standards claims with the name. But please, explain how he's trying to "change things from within." Because so far all he's done is post in a non-engaging manner on a MB. I don't see him talking about joining protests or passing out literature to fans or even trying to create an actual dialogue at all. I feel like the term hypocrisy fits like a glove in his case, and anyone else's who truly believes, or claims, the name is racist, morally wrong, yet continues to support the team financially. If you think it's racist, fine, but then actually take a stand for it. What he and others have shown is they have no problem crying racism, yet aren't going to actually do anything about it and care about themselves more than that cause, which is why they keep rooting for the team. Much easier to have your cake and eat it too by saying you believe something is wrong than to actually take a stand for it. These are human being he and others are claiming are being slighted, being made to be inferior by our name, yet they go on cheering and supporting it anyway. Hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Yes, I had forgotten that the definition of "hypocrite" is "any person who supports something, but does not agree with every single thing which that something does." Guess that label fits me, too. I'm pretty certain that, in the upcoming election, I'm going to vote for at least one candidate who I disagree with, on at least one issue. in fact, I'll point out: I'm defending the guy, and I don't agree with him, on the name. And I love the irony of claiming that someone who posts on a message board is not "even trying to create an actual dialogue at all". Silly me. I only see one side of this exchange trying to silence disagreement. (And it's not him.) But then, it's probably because I'm a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 But please, explain how he's trying to "change things from within." Because so far all he's done is post in a non-engaging manner on a MB. I don't see him talking about joining protests or passing out literature to fans or even trying to create an actual dialogue at all. He has a website, hands out literature to fans, and hosts information meetings all dedicated to rebranding the name; he's doing a lot more than just posting in a non-engaging manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 1). He's actually claiming that there was a vote, and that every single member agrees with him. Frankly, that's shocking news, to me. 2). And I'm willing to bet that not one single one of those tribes even HAD a vote. Rather, a majority of the tribe's POLITICIANS passed a non-binding resolution, or signed a petition. If there was a vote, it was a vote of maybe six politicians, which he is now trying to claim equals 100,000 unanimous votes. In short, he's trying to claim that every single person in the US VOTED to have Obamacare repealed, and another couple of investigations into Benghazi. Larry, if it's so easy to co-opt the democratic process on reservations, why aren't there a large majority of tribes proclaiming public support for keeping the name? Corruption, if that's what you're insinuating, goes both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Larry, if it's so easy to co-opt the democratic process on reservations, why aren't there a large majority of tribes proclaiming public support for keeping the name? Corruption, if that's what you're insinuating, goes both ways. Notice that you have not so much as attempted to support your claim. But then, we knew it wasn't true, when you made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Notice that you have not so much as attempted to support your claim. I notice you never address the near silence from the NA "Keep the Name" camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I notice you never address the near silence from the NA "Keep the Name" camp. Because it's irrelevent. Failure to march against you does not entitle you to claim they support you. Nor to simply wave your hand and claim they don;t count. There is no principle, of law or morality, that says that if 10 people march for something, and nobody marches against them, then society must do what the 10 people demand. No matter how much you try to create such a rule. Now, for the third time: You planning on backing up the claim that you made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 haha. Oh my, Larry I implore you to please end this otherwise, I will have you address a soil situation for many of us for laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I don't find any of the polls or tribal stances terribly compelling because they are all woefully incomplete or unreliable. Self identifying as native american to me immediately negates results if there is no verification. A handful of tribal leaders does little to sway me either. I don't see why this is so hard. Somewhere there exists a list of every tribes leadership and their email. Someone should make use of it and compile a more complete picture. I doubt it would be too hard to get most tribes agree to shoot out a survey monkey to their membership lists. At the very least get the opinion of a large majority of whatever leaders they have. I think part of the reason why we haven't seen this undertaking is that neither side wants to gamble on results. Those for changing the name could torpedo themselves by doing it. So could those for keeping the name. If you got the opinion of 80% of tribal leadership in the US... that's a big statement. If you can't control or predict it before hand, best to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Saying the name should be changed while you wear a Chief Wahoo baseball cap would be hypocrisy. To some the redskins logo is more offensive than the name. Either way, the name is on all the gear. So anyone asking for the name to change, that wears/owns team gear, is a hypocrite? But participating on the team message board isn't? Is going to a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I don't find any of the polls or tribal stances terribly compelling because they are all woefully incomplete or unreliable. Self identifying as native american to me immediately negates results if there is no verification. Then you doubt the accuracy of every public opinion poll ever conducted, and the US Census. (Oh. And every person on ES.) Now, me, I think Annenberg did things pretty much perfectly. 1) They asked people about how they felt, themselves. Not how they think other people feel. Me, if you say you feel a certain way about something, I kinda tend to assume that you're the expert on that subject. If you tell me how somebody else feels about it, you don't have that credibility. 2) They asked people about the name of the football team. That is, after all, the matter that's important. Not whether the word can be offensive, if used in some other, imaginary, way. 3) They asked if the name was offensive. That is the bar that must be met, if you want to force Snyder to change the name. (Now, asking some different question, like whether they view the name as positive, negative, or neutral, might be an important question, if someone were trying to convince Snyder that changing the name might make him more money. "This other name, over here, gets much better positive views" might be an excellent reason why he might want to change the name. But it's not a reason to force him to do so.) To me, the biggest problem with Annenberg, is that it's old. This issue has been getting (comparatively) a lot of media attention, for the last 10 years. And people's minds do change. And the media certainly has the power to change people's minds. (Especially in cases where most people don't really have strong opinions one way or the other, and this is one of those cases.) I'd be amazed if the numbers haven't changed, since Annenberg. If I were placing bets, I'd say that the percent offended has probably doubled, since then. (But then, I would have expected the percent offended to be higher than Annenberg recorded. And there have been more recent polls which, while not as extensive, don't seem to show such a huge shift. So my opinion isn't exactly authoritative.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Nice closeout Larry. Shut this one down. Only thing I disagree with is that numbers are doubled. I would agree to make a wager on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Table 1 Those numbers in no way reflect what you are trying to claim and the vote isn't in that table at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Every time i've heard any Native Americans publicly support the name, they are ridiculed and ignored by the loud minority. Navajo code talkers say that they are proud of it, they are old men who have been bought. Last year a tribal leader (forget which one) is shown in Snyder's box, and he is made fun of, denigrated, and has his integrity called into question. Red Mesa High School students say they are proud to name their team "Redskins" and Harjo says quite literally that they are ignorant and in need of re-education. There is no silence on the part of Native Americans who do not find it offensive. there is marginalization, ignorance, and vitriol.. Pretending there is no vocal opposition is to be unaware it exists. All it would take is a little research to find them. This thread is peppered with their stories. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Yes, I had forgotten that the definition of "hypocrite" is "any person who supports something, but does not agree with every single thing which that something does." Guess that label fits me, too. I'm pretty certain that, in the upcoming election, I'm going to vote for at least one candidate who I disagree with, on at least one issue. in fact, I'll point out: I'm defending the guy, and I don't agree with him, on the name. And I love the irony of claiming that someone who posts on a message board is not "even trying to create an actual dialogue at all". Silly me. I only see one side of this exchange trying to silence disagreement. (And it's not him.) But then, it's probably because I'm a hypocrite. I don't feel like you're addressing my point though. I showed exactly how he fits the definition, you responded by side-stepping and moving the goal posts to "every single little thing." But in this case that "little thing" is believing something is racist and causes harm. That's not a "little thing." If you truly believe something is racist, and have the option to abstain from it to take a stand, then not taking a stand, but in fact financially supporting it, is contradictory and hypocritical. I get wanting to protect team fans with different options, but the specific belief that the name is racist, and going so far as to back the notion that the name causes psychological harm, is not a belief one truly holds and truly cares about if they then continue to support the name. I mean, this really shouldn't be a continued argument. It's cut and dry. If you truly believe the name is racist and denigrates human beings, you shouldn't support it and doing so is the definition of hypocrisy so long as the option to abstain exists. Not abstaining means you value self-interest over others you believe are being harmed. He has a website, hands out literature to fans, and hosts information meetings all dedicated to rebranding the name; he's doing a lot more than just posting in a non-engaging manner. That's news to me. I've been pretty active in this thread, yet have never seen him mention to it, link to it, or put any info in his sig where it would then be highly visible every time he posted it. I think Larry would have immediately called me on it too. But tell me, what's your opinion of those that say they agree with you, but still pay money to the team and support them? Do you believe their actions match their words? Larry, if it's so easy to co-opt the democratic process on reservations, why aren't there a large majority of tribes proclaiming public support for keeping the name? Corruption, if that's what you're insinuating, goes both ways. There have been. Just recently with CA's name ban, there were a bunch of tribes speaking out against it and in favor of the name. But controversy doesn't sell. Plus, it doesn't vibe with the narrative many journalists have tried to push, so spotlight isn't bright. But tell me, if the name is so racist and morally outrageous, shouldn't that in itself be enough incentive for NAs to voice an opinion in any poll where given the opportunity? There should be practically zero cases of NA support, save for a lone crazy or two. NA HSs wouldn't have the name if it is as you said, nor would they vote to keep it in these modern times. But they have. The clear lack of unanimity against the name shows the name isn't racist or morally outrageous to the degree activists have suggested (one which merits true consideration of changing the name). Some have tried to liken it to the n word, but a team name with that would have near unanimity against it because of it's offensiveness. Indifference to the name by respondents is clear enough indication that the name is not so offensive that change is warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Regarding the alleged hypocrisy... For the record, 2015 will be my final year as a legacy STH, since Griffith Stadium. Taking a stand against the name is reason #3 for why I'm finally letting go. Reason #1 is that I can no longer recover the cost of the STs, via resale. Reason #2 is that I haven't used the seats since Gibbs 2.0. Yes Elk, I still watch the game$ on TV. I also partake in ES activity every day. However, this has been my first year without attending a home game since '82. My last merchandise purchase was a hat from early 2012. The reason I've been selling my STs is because I've been purchasing individual games on the secondary market for the past decade. I've taken advantage of lower prices and superior seat locations, without preseason costs which are a 20% loss up front. I held on to the family ST account purely for sentimental purposes, knowing that I could stay afloat by selling early, each off-season. There was still tremendous joy each July when those tix would arrive with my grandfather's name on the envelope. I've kept every one of Pop's ST ID cards with my stub collection. (Pop has been dead since Dallas week in Dec of 1987.) With ticket resale prices declining every year since Gibbs 2.0, I barely broke even this year. Seats that used to sell in April now linger on Stubhub till July. The trajectory indicated that I would take a loss next year. Even as much as I want the team name to change, I still felt giddy about those tix. Being a client of the team (while seeking change) still felt good the past couple of years. It tied into the 'I aint leavin' mentality. Unfortunately, time$ have changed. I wish I could still keep the seats, team name and money aside. Those tix are a family heirloom to me. Fortunately, I got to enjoy the best years with them during Gibbs 1.0. I'll always be able to buy better tix to any game I want in the future. But it still hurts to let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Regarding the alleged hypocrisy... For the record, 2015 will be my final year as a legacy STH, since Griffith Stadium. Taking a stand against the name is reason #3 for why I'm finally letting go. Reason #1 is that I can no longer recover the cost of the STs, via resale. Reason #2 is that I haven't used the seats since Gibbs 2.0. Yes Elk, I still watch the game$ on TV. I also partake in ES activity every day. However, this has been my first year without attending a home game since '82. My last merchandise purchase was a hat from early 2012. The reason I've been selling my STs is because I've been purchasing individual games on the secondary market for the past decade. I've taken advantage of lower prices and superior seat locations, without preseason costs which are a 20% loss up front. I held on to the family ST account purely for sentimental purposes, knowing that I could stay afloat by selling early, each off-season. There was still tremendous joy each July when those tix would arrive with my grandfather's name on the envelope. I've kept every one of Pop's ST ID cards with my stub collection. (Pop has been dead since Dallas week in Dec of 1987.) With ticket resale prices declining every year since Gibbs 2.0, I barely broke even this year. Seats that used to sell in April now linger on Stubhub till July. The trajectory indicated that I would take a loss next year. Even as much as I want the team name to change, I still felt giddy about those tix. Being a client of the team (while seeking change) still felt good the past couple of years. It tied into the 'I aint leavin' mentality. Unfortunately, time$ have changed. I wish I could still keep the seats, team name and money aside. Those tix are a family heirloom to me. Fortunately, I got to enjoy the best years with them during Gibbs 1.0. I'll always be able to buy better tix to any game I want in the future. But it still hurts to let go. My apologies to everyone for quoting the large text. You simply can't make these things up to seem even more ridiculous. I didn't want others to miss out on this statement. Sir, I suggest you start with looking into Michael Jackson, then search "man in the mirror". Might work out for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 My apologies to everyone for quoting the large text. You simply can't make these things up to seem even more ridiculous. I didn't want others to miss out on this statement. Sir, I suggest you start with looking into Michael Jackson, then search "man in the mirror". Might work out for you. And..... that's why I don't post in this thread very often. The personal attacks are relentless and palpable. If all you guys want is a circle jerk where you never get challenged on your preexisting views, you are doing a great job of creating one here. You can remain satisfied that you are completely in the right, and everyone else is Susan Harjo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 And..... that's why I don't post in this thread very often. The personal attacks are relentless and palpable. If all you guys want is a circle jerk where you never get challenged on your preexisting views, you are doing a great job of creating one here. You can remain satisfied that you are completely in the right, and everyone else is Susan Harjo. i dont think this has been the case here at all. i think the vast majority of posts are about the facts surrounding the issue, and debating the legitimacy- or lack thereof -of the issues. does the occasional frustrated post surface? of course. i see the majority of posts concerning the 'emotional', feel good, 'just do the right thing' argument coming from the name changers, ignoring empirical evidence. while i have seen the equivalent from the other side in the form of arguments about 'tradition', its been in the commentary sections of national articles- not here. been a good discussion here for the most part, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 i dont think this has been the case here at all. i think the vast majority of posts are about the facts surrounding the issue, and debating the legitimacy- or lack thereof -of the issues. does the occasional frustrated post surface? of course. i see the majority of posts concerning the 'emotional', feel good, 'just do the right thing' argument coming from the name changers, ignoring empirical evidence. while i have seen the equivalent from the other side in the form of arguments about 'tradition', its been in the commentary sections of national articles- not here. been a good discussion here for the most part, imo. I guess it is a matter of perspective. It always seems like a good discussion when almost everyone agrees with your views and shares the same way of looking at the evidence and deciding what evidence is important. To those of us who disagree and think you are asking the wrong questions and emphasizing the wrong points, it seems closed and hostile. Reality is probably somewhere in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I Tweeted Theismann for details on the 'cheif's headdress' that was gifted to him after winning SB17. If the headdress was real, giving one away would have been a big deal, even at the time. http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/joe-theismann-on-the-redskins-name-controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Here's a chance to meet Susan Harjo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.