Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Around the Horn had it as a topic. All 4 mostly discounted the poll. Pablo went with one quote about how it's all that NA's have. Another said some just don't know the history. The question was asked if 99% found it ok, should it be changed. They still said yes. Because that's still a lot of people.

Coming up next..... Skip Bayless, Stephen A., Curt Shilling, and a others who are offensive or have been offensive for years for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. I think 10% is a reasonable number. .000000000000000000000000001% is not.

I may have missed your point too..if so I'm sorry. Ultimately what I was saying is that the Native American's moral compass, as a community, is suspect because of the suppression they've dealt with. That is obvious because they've resorted to throwing up casinos on their land, etc.

Ahhh. I get it. Silly native Americans, you've had it so tough you can't think for yourselves. Don't worry, us white people are here to tell you what is REALLY offensive, and we know better than the 90% of you about what's best for you and how you feel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just coming in to post that lol. ATH went to town.

I'll stand by what my opinion has been all along. I don't feel that it's right to tell someone what they should or shouldn't be offended by.

I also feel that the opinions of the overall group in question should be heard. I recognize that this isn't necessarily a black and white issue, but when the group who's cause you're championing largely seems either indifferent or for the name (from a numbers standpoint, and just from bits and pieces Ive heard from others, including what I myself have seen/heard), that speaks volumes.

Yet still, you have non NA's simply brushing off all these people. My response to those NA's actually offended wouldn't be to suck it up, either. I can't speak to what they may have endured on a count of that word being used against them. But when there is no clear consensus among your own people, and its been illustrated over and over again to be the case, it, at the very least, tells me that it's not the damning issue it's being portrayed as by people and entities with oh so obvious ulterior motives.

I can think of every slur I know of and the groups they're targeted towards. Not in any of those groups will you find such overwhelming indifference, and/or support, were a group of those people to be polled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Harjo and Halbritter feel the poll should be conducted this way:

 

1. Have only Native Americans ask the questions in person

2. Only Native Americans who live on reservations should be questioned

3. There must be a calming ceremony with each polling participant and including the tribal leaders

4. Each question must be proceeded by the numerous stories and theories about the offensive origin of the word 'redskin' in history

5. After each question, the participant must be allowed to discuss the question in private with tribal leaders to eliminate confusion and pressure from outside forces

6. The answers are to be given to the polling company a week later by representatives of the tribe whose last names begin with the letter "H"

 

Then, and ONLY then, can we get polling results that can be trusted and accurate.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back again to tell me how I should feel about the name, and then to have the arrogance to say that I am ignorant and not knowledgeable enough about the situation to make a decision ? 

 

This guy is a hoot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand what more needs to be done? Poll after poll continues to come up with the same response. NAs not named Harjo or Halbritter simply don't seem to be offended. And I'm totally okay with changing the name if NAs do find it offensive. But the overwhelming evidence seems to be on the side of keeping the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of every slur I know of and the groups they're targeted towards. Not in any of those groups will you find such overwhelming indifference, and/or support, were a group of those people to be polled.

This is because the term Redskins overwhelmingly is not and never has been used as a slur. Isolated cases? Yes. Widespread, common use? No. It was used as a simple descriptor on par with "white man", by people of various races. 99.999% of the time it is used today is aa a mascot. It is not a slur. Edited by HoustonSkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the Horn had it as a topic. All 4 mostly discounted the poll. Pablo went with one quote about how it's all that NA's have. Another said some just don't know the history. The question was asked if 99% found it ok, should it be changed. They still said yes. Because that's still a lot of people

Not surprising.

One cannot reason themselves out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because the term Redskins overwhelmingly is not and never has been used as a slur. Isolated cases? Yes. Widespread, common use? No. It was used as a simple descriptor on par with "white man", by people of various races. 99.999% of the time it is used today is aa a mascot. It is not a slur.

I never implied in my post that it was or wasn't. That really wasn't even the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's article is just a fascinating study of people being confronted with something that they don't like and how they deal with it...deny, deny, deny.  IMO, deeper issue with our society on display here.  People just want to discount things they see or are presented with at every turn because it proves them wrong.  And if you're OFFENDED in society today you are always in the RIGHT.

 

The fact that the Post, a liberal rag, came out with the story is just even better.  The cherry on top for me is that NAs who classify themselves as liberal don't care, either.

 

Michael Smith was so stupid... "I can read a dictionary, it's a slur...."  so is every word he's ever used gone strictly by the dictionary definition?  Is our language bound by what we have defined in dictionaries?  He just kept shaking his head in disbelief, it was hilarious.  It was obvious he didn't know what else to say.

 

IMO,  a lot of people in society today can't handle things that invalidate their point of view.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Harjo and Halbritter feel the poll should be conducted this way:

 

1. Have only Native Americans ask the questions in person

2. Only Native Americans who live on reservations should be questioned

3. There must be a calming ceremony with each polling participant and including the tribal leaders

4. Each question must be proceeded by the numerous stories and theories about the offensive origin of the word 'redskin' in history

5. After each question, the participant must be allowed to discuss the question in private with tribal leaders to eliminate confusion and pressure from outside forces

6. The answers are to be given to the polling company a week later by representatives of the tribe whose last names begin with the letter "H"

 

Then, and ONLY then, can we get polling results that can be trusted and accurate.

I think you are giving them too much credit.

 

Harjo and Halbritter's plan.

 

1. Find a group of Native Americans who have been vocally against the name.

2. Pay them extra money to ensure they give the answers you want.

3. Show them the poll in advance and tell them how to answer it.

4. Present poll and score results.

5. Act surprised about unanimity of results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and then to have the arrogance to say that I am ignorant and not knowledgeable enough about the situation to make a decision ?

Yeah Kosher...because the alternative is they have to admit defeat and are fighting a lost cause.

We both know they can't do that...so now if you are 1.) Native and you aren't offended...it's because you are too dumb to know any better, or 2.). You would be offended if you knew about the name what the percentage of "legitimate card-carrying practicing Natives on reservations" know.

Edited by Painkiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never implied in my post that it was or wasn't. That really wasn't even the point.

I wasn't necessarily replying directly to you, just using your statement as a prelude to mine. My point was that there are racial slurs, but Redskins isn't one of them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't necessarily replying directly to you, just using your statement as a prelude to mine. My point was that there are racial slurs, but Redskins isn't one of them.

Gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Smith was so stupid... "I can read a dictionary, it's a slur...." so is every word he's ever used gone strictly by the dictionary definition? Is our language bound by what we have defined in dictionaries? He just kept shaking his head in disbelief, it was hilarious. It was obvious he didn't know what else to say.

I still question what new tangible evidence was used to add "usually a slur" to the definition of the word to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's article is just a fascinating study of people being confronted with something that they don't like and how they deal with it...deny, deny, deny.  IMO, deeper issue with our society on display here.  People just want to discount things they see or are presented with at every turn because it proves them wrong.  And if you're OFFENDED in society today you are always in the RIGHT.

 

 

 

IMO,  a lot of people in society today can't handle things that invalidate their point of view.  

 

you may be my more articulate brother from a different mother.

 

nicely said. i'm actually fascinated by the reactions myself.

I think you are giving them too much credit.

 

Halbritter's plan.

 

1. Find a group of Native Americans who have been vocally against the name.

2. Pay them extra money to ensure they give the answers you want.

3. Show them the poll in advance and tell them how to answer it.

4. Present poll and score results.

5. Act surprised about unanimity of results.

6. open another casino in honor of another native hating white guy

 

 

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Kosher...because the alternative is they have to admit defeat and are fighting a lost cause.

We both know they can't do that...so now if you are 1.) Native and you aren't offended...it's because you are too dumb to know any better, or 2.). You would be offended if you knew about the name what the percentage of "legitimate card-carrying practicing Natives on reservations" know.

 

You know, I don't need an apology or admission from those rabble rousers or anything of the sort. 

 

I simply need them to move on to something that is of even a mere bit of importance in today's society. Not even selfishly for NAs or even Redskins fans. This name change thing has been really annoying for me, and shame on the few NAs who continue to think this absurdly minute point trying to be made is even a valid point to begin with.

 

Odd thing to me as a NA...I have been called a lot worse things than a Redskins Fan over the years. 

 

This poor guy still not understanding numbers and still trying to throw them at us. This poor guy thinking somehow that NAs are trapped on reservations like slaves or members of the Koresh family, or Jim Jones cult. Simply has no clue what really goes on at any reservation in the country. I call BS on nearly everything he has spouted off here over the years. His ilk is more offensive than any name that any member of my family has ever been called, it's downright disrespectful. Sitting here doubting my insight and understanding of not only the word, the context, but also current meaning of the word. 

 

Pathetic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the Horn had it as a topic. All 4 mostly discounted the poll. Pablo went with one quote about how it's all that NA's have. Another said some just don't know the history. The question was asked if 99% found it ok, should it be changed. They still said yes. Because that's still a lot of people.

 

 

I saw that too. They came off like typical elitist PC trash.

 

Their basic attitude was 'Who cares if most NAs don't find it offensive. Just change it anyway because some do and we say they should'. One even resorted to the sad "If just one person is offended..." nonsense. :rolleyes:

 

One (Micheal Smith maybe) even tried to use the tyranny of the majority argument. LOL Totally misusing it and misunderstanding it.

 

In his world, one person or group should get to decide what is proper and allowable for the rest of us in our country.

 

Proof positive that politically correct people, in their heart of hearts, are wannbe FACISTS that want to run and control our lives.

Edited by SkinsGuy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did people read the verbatims by respondants?

 

This is an absolute stunner to me that after the millions spent against the name the last 3 years, attitude remain unchanged by Native Americans. Overwhelming 

 

 

The results do not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that the Post actually published the results. I would have thought they would assumed it was wrong since it was not the same as their opinion, and continued to conduct polls until they got the answer they wanted. I mean clearly truth in reporting is not the Posts strong point.

Edited by goskins10
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

One (Micheal Smith maybe) even tried to use the tyranny of the majority argument. LOL Totally misusing it and misunderstanding it.

 

 

 

 

tyranny of the majority.....of native americans that aren't offended?

 

yep. that's it. those evil tyrannical natives.

 

keep on keeping on, michael smith.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does surprise me is that the Post actually published the results. I would have thought they would assumed it was wrong since it was not the same as their opinion, and continued to conduct polls until they go the answer they wanted. I mean clearly truth in reporting is not the Posts strong point.

I agree but will give credit where it is due. They conducted the poll and went public wth the results despite the fact the results were likely not what they had hoped for or expected.

Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if they cave in to the pressure that will no doubt be applied for them to discredit their own poll. lol

Edited by Painkiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most offensive and insulting part of this whole debate has been lead plaintiff Suzan Harjo. First she claims the opinion of native Americans who aren't offended don't matter, now she questions whether the poll participants are even native American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, one of the dumbest excuses for people dismissing the Annenberg poll was that "its irrelevant, because its *gasp* 10 years old!"

 

ridiculous.

 

glad to see its held up so I don't have to read any more of that drivel.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the results.

For a few tears, now, I've been assuming that the media has successfully changed a lot of people's minds, and the results were different, now. Just at a rough exstimate, I would have bet that the "percent offended" had doubled, since Annenberg, and was now around 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The results do not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that the Post actually published the results. I would have thought they would assumed it was wrong since it was not the same as their opinion, and continued to conduct polls until they got the answer they wanted. I mean clearly truth in reporting is not the Posts strong point.

This should not surprise you. The accusations of bias (in the mainstream media) is largely propaganda. The fabrications and falsehoods come from those making the complaints usually.

 

The slant can be seen in story selection and sensationalism, but most reporters and editors do care for truth at least in traditional journalism. If we want this poll to open eyes... I hope some on the right take a second look at the press. For all their faults, they are by and large honest and care about their work. That is, unless you work for FOX or MSNBC, but cable TV news is often much more about analysis and opinion than reporting.

 

Okay, stepping off soap box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.