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

[Bang]

People can still BE offended.

But in so far as demanding change because THEY are offended on behalf of someone else who is NOT offended.. well that is when it the sympathetically offended need to shut up and recognize that their offense is nothing but a personal feeling.

We all have personal feelings about things we can't or should not change.

It's the constant demand for everyone else to agree with you to the point that you demand it be changed for everyone that gets to be tremendously annoying.

Frankly, i don't see how a person who is supposedly so sensitive that they are offended by proxy can't get this.
But then i look around and I'm hardly surprised.

Selfishness is the American way.

 

~Bang

[Califan007 The Constipated]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-dropping-my-protest-of-washingtons-football-team-name/2016/05/19/b09e8e7e-1cfe-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Holy cow lol...as much as I loved his public crow-eating, this article was a mistake. Much better to wait awhile before reacting.

[PF Chang]

Um lol...Donate to a charity? Howzabout starting one up specifically to help Native Americans?

http://www.washingtonredskinsoriginalamericansfoundation.org

 

I am talking about donating enough to make an actual difference, not the token charities of every MegaCorp in the country. Do something that will actually draw attention, instead of pointing to the 25K checks from the Foundation that was probably created for tax avoidance. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

well that is when it the sympathetically offended need to shut up and recognize that their offense is nothing but a personal feeling.

And this is exactly what I said 290+ pages ago, when this thread first started lol...

[tshile]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-dropping-my-protest-of-washingtons-football-team-name/2016/05/19/b09e8e7e-1cfe-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?tid=sm_tw

 

hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooly crap

 

i could not ask any more from a person who has taken the change-the-name position. that is as thorough a write up on how their side was wrong as it can get.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I am talking about donating enough to make an actual difference, not the token charities of every MegaCorp in the country. Do something that will actually draw attention, instead of pointing to the 25K checks from the Foundation that was probably created for tax avoidance.

Token charity?...you have no ****ing clue what this charity does, do you lol...

[tshile]

I think one thing that latest op ed in WP points out, that we as fans have glossed over and shouldn't:

 

 

The native americans actually do find it offensive when we (non-native americans) wear headdresses or otherwise dress up in the way some of us do.

 

That sort of thing has deep roots in their culture for ceremonial purposes and other such things, and they seem to find it quite disrespectful when we do that.

 

So, if we're serious about caring about the respect factor, and we want to use this poll as our #1 token of evidence that we're not in the wrong, we should probably make it a point to make it understood that when we do that we are being disrespectful.

[grhqofb5]

To me, the trend is important. Additionally, the actual stance of those who aren't offended is important, which is why the specific wording of these polls is so critical. For my personal opinion, the opposite of "offended" isn't "not offended" it's "honored by" or "proud of" the name. So, if the number of Native Americans who LIKE the name, not just those who are indifferent, outnumbers those who are offended, then I think the organization is doing right by the community to remain as the Redskins. 

 

That was very long, but I hope that makes sense. 

 

So the new standard is now (1) an NA cannot be offended, and (2) an NA must "like" or "Feel proud" about the name?  What about an NA that is a Giants fan?  He probably doesn't "like" the Redskins name, but isn't offended by it either.  Or an NA who just doesn't care?  Whether the term is "liked" or makes an NA "proud" is certainly interesting, but that seems to deal more with the marketing perspective.  I'm not offended by the name "Patriots" but I also don't have this burning positive feeling about it. Offense is what should be avoided, and any other considerations are really tangential (at least in my opinion).

[PF Chang]

Token charity?...you have no ****ing clue what this charity does, do you lol...

 

I guess not. But who really would, given that it's more famous for being made fun of by Colbert than for anything it does? The charity is not making the kind of point/headlines that I think a 'big splash' would make. Not sure why this idea makes you so angry. 

[tshile]

I guess not. But who really would, given that it's more famous for being made fun of by Colbert than for anything it does? The charity is not making the kind of point/headlines that I think a 'big splash' would make. Not sure why this idea makes you so angry. 

 

...

 

It's more famous because that's the way the people making this an issue think. They've already displayed they don't actually care about the situation, they just want to push their agenda and mock the people that don't agree with them.

 

Do you expect Colbert and his viewers to actually follow it around and figure out what it's doing? Of course not. That's now how they work.

 

Which has kind of been the entire issue all along. These people haven't bothered to figure out where the logo came from (native americans), or what the actual historical context of the word is (if they did, they wouldn't be so god damned surprised 9/10 don't find it offensive!)

[grego]

kornheiser talking about it now

[PF Chang]

...

 

It's more famous because that's the way the people making this an issue think. They've already displayed they don't actually care about the situation, they just want to push their agenda and mock the people that don't agree with them.

 

Do you expect Colbert and his viewers to actually follow it around and figure out what it's doing? Of course not. That's now how they work.

 

Which has kind of been the entire issue all along. These people haven't bothered to figure out where the logo came from (native americans), or what the actual historical context of the word is (if they did, they wouldn't be so god damned surprised 9/10 don't find it offensive!)

 

I agree with all of this. Ultimately the "everything is offensive" crowd is never going to change their minds on this one, even if 5 more polls saying 100% of all Native Americans and their descendants love the Redskins. I don't expect a big splash to be viewed as anything but a bribe by those people (and realistically, that's what it is). 

 

But I do think that if this is about public opinion, saying "I am donating $10 million, today, to NA hunger" is more powerful than "I am creating a foundation." I guess I just don't think this poll is some pyrrhic victory. Soon enough another poll will show less support and it's back to square one. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I guess not. But who really would, given that it's more famous for being made fun of by Colbert than for anything it does? The charity is not making the kind of point/headlines that I think a 'big splash' would make. Not sure why this idea makes you so angry.

The "idea" doesn't make me angry--nothing here does lol--but seeing an extremely beneficial Native American charity described in such a dismissive manner by someone who only knows about the charity from what late night talk show hosts jokes about will definitely get a reaction from me.

[tshile]

kornheiser talking about it now

 

And now reasonably intelligent people (I listen to this show all the time, they are pretty smart) are pretending that they don't understand what a poll or a survey is.

 

They're pretending the WP didn't release an exhaustive explanation of how they did it and why it's representative.

 

And they're pretending some other polls are of equal merit, when we know based on the methodology that they are not of equal merit.

 

They should be embarrassed. They also know, generally speaking, that their core fanbase that follows the show is smart enough to understand what is going on here too.

[sacase]

Ok a couple things jump out at me with this poll, first, only 44% of the people are affiliated with a tribe. I am curious how they determined if the people are NA or not. I don't know how many black women I heard say they had NA in their blood. No you are just regular black. #2 the poll itself said 21% of NA's feel that the word is disrespectful to NA's. How do they get 9 out of 10 when 21% find it disrespectful. If you estimate that there are 5.2 million people with NA blood, then that is over 1 million who are find it disrespectful or 1 in 5. Furthermore 43% of NA's find it to be of some importance. So 2.2 million NA's find it somewhat important. That's nearly half. When compared to other issues that the NA population has, yeah it's not that important, but there is something tied to it. I don't think this poll is the slam dunk that most are claiming. 

[Mr. Sinister]

I will also add that if any of you feel the obligation to openly question people on the other side of the debate via social media, radio, etc, don't be assholes about it. Makes you look like a jackface moron, and puts all of us (that are willing to see both arguments... the reasonable and non peabrained ones) in a bad light

[PF Chang]

The "idea" doesn't make me angry--nothing here does lol--but seeing an extremely beneficial Native American charity described in such a dismissive manner by someone who only knows about the charity from what late night talk show hosts jokes about will definitely get a reaction from me.

 

Fair enough. I mean fwiw, I'm of course glad the charity exists. I am a Redskins fan too, I didn't hear about the charity from Colbert.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

So the new standard is now (1) an NA cannot be offended, and (2) an NA must "like" or "Feel proud" about the name?  What about an NA that is a Giants fan?  He probably doesn't "like" the Redskins name, but isn't offended by it either.  Or an NA who just doesn't care?  Whether the term is "liked" or makes an NA "proud" is certainly interesting, but that seems to deal more with the marketing perspective.  I'm not offended by the name "Patriots" but I also don't have this burning positive feeling about it. Offense is what should be avoided, and any other considerations are really tangential (at least in my opinion).

 

I'm anti-name change for the record. All I really mean is that, to me, this has ALWAYS been about what the Native Americans feel. Not what UnWise Mike or Bob Costas or anyone thinks. It seems like the overwhelming majority of NAs like the name and are not just indifferent to it. I think it's important. 

 

Sorry if my post came across as expressing the opposite of that. 

[grego]

And now reasonably intelligent people (I listen to this show all the time, they are pretty smart) are pretending that they don't understand what a poll or a survey is.

 

They're pretending the WP didn't release an exhaustive explanation of how they did it and why it's representative.

 

And they're pretending some other polls are of equal merit, when we know based on the methodology that they are not of equal merit.

 

They should be embarrassed. They also know, generally speaking, that their core fanbase that follows the show is smart enough to understand what is going on here too.

 

 

I got the same thing out of that. seemed like it was nearly all gary braun chiming in with that nonsense, talking about how 'other polls have been done that say 7 out of 10 find it offensive'......yes, gary, I'm sure they were done exactly the same way, surveyed the exact same number of native americans- if not more- and are every bit as reliable.

 

his best quote was this- his exact words were 'its only a poll'.....sorry, what?! what the hell do you think a poll is? a way to find out peoples opinons? maybe?

 

 

for petes sake. there are no words....

[Burgold]

You need to re-read your history.

Democrats like Al Gore (and his wife Tipper) and Joseph Lieberman were some of the leading officials dragging Rock and Roll artists before Congress to complain about lyrics.

It was a bipartisan effort.

Tipper Gore? Sure, find the exception to make the rule. Let's be honest. Back in the day the anti-rock movement was hardly a liberal hippy thing. It was a conservative, Bible thumping, protect the children movement.

I can imagine born again Southern social conservatives like Jimmy Carter being on that train, but ya had to have conservatism in your blood to be on the anti-rock and especially the anti-rap movement.

But let's not go to far on my derailment. We actually are in agreement in the big issue. The "Redskins" issue.

[ZRagone]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-dropping-my-protest-of-washingtons-football-team-name/2016/05/19/b09e8e7e-1cfe-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Money quote, and the argument I've been pointing out for some time:

Still, non-Indian critics like me can’t ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. Those who have opposed the team name include more than a quarter of Washington-area residents, along with President Obama, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and 50 Democratic U.S. senators. Many of us thought we were defending a group that needed support. But it feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians’ interests better than they do. We can’t argue that 9 out of 10 Indians somehow just don’t realize they’re being insulted. Some Indians told The Post that they actively support the name, because its use means Native Americans haven’t been forgotten.

I have no problem if he, individually, feels the word is offensive and feels more for that 9% that are offended by it then he does for native americans who have a sense of pride or enjoyment in the name. My issue has been with people taking such action as a means of attempting to force the team through social pressure to change the name, often under the moniker of trying to support native americans.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This is what was said 2 years ago on Sports Illustrated/MMQB:

"...team officials and the NFL paint a nearly uniform picture of support for the name, typically citing the results of a 2004 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that 90 percent of the 768 self-identified Native Americans polled said the team name “Redskins” did not bother them. (The question: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”). That survey is 10 years old. Can the same opinion be applied today?"

[Jumbo]

Is this modspeak for "i can ban your ass right now if i wanted to"?

If you strike me down, it will only make me stronger.

 

what couldn't make you stronger?

 

i mean, when you're starting at zero....

 

I will never ban you. I will simply focus on the screen and say: "Leave this place! The power of the Antichrist compels you! The power of the Antichrist compels you!" At least I think that's it---I have to go back and read the instructions again.

[tshile]

some people are not so happy

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/05/19/reaction-to-latest-redskins-name-poll-despite-results-strong-emotions-remain/

[ZRagone]

Ok a couple things jump out at me with this poll, first, only 44% of the people are affiliated with a tribe.

Yep. Which is why EVERY responses can be broken down by an overall rating, a rating based on if they are a member of a tribe or not, and a rating of if they're on a reservation or not. Which is an accurate representation of Native Americans in the United States today, because not all of them live on reservations or are part of a federally recognized tribe. Additionally, for the majority of the questions the results were relatively similar regardless of whether you looked at the overall number or broke it down based on tribal membership or reservation living.

 

I am curious how they determined if the people are NA or not.

At the start of the survey they were asked for what race they identified as, with only the answers by native American's being counted for the purpose of the survey. This is the exact same fashion in which the US Census deals with native American identification. IE, if one is to suggest that this is an invalid form of obtaining such information, then use of census data to determine the number of native americans in this country and the various information spawned off that from the census would have to be looked at with equal credulity.

Also, the problem you are getting into, and it's one others have as well, is attempting to declare who a "real" native American is and who isn't. Who are you, or anyone really, to say someone who has native American blood and has identified their whole life as native American but never officially joined a tribe is "More" or "less" native American than someone with a lower percentage of native American blood but happens to belong to a tribe?

That's why a poll like this asks in a generic fashion up front what you self identify as; it's the best chance of getting an honest response based on how they regularly identify.

 

#2 the poll itself said 21% of NA's feel that the word is disrespectful to NA's. How do they get 9 out of 10 when 21% find it disrespectful.

It's weird because at one point you seem like you read the poll, and at other points you ask completely ridiculous questions if you had read the poll.

The 9 out of 10 and the 21% were two entirely different questions.

The 9 out of 10 is the number of native Americans bothered by the usage of the word as the name of a sports team.

21% find it disrespectful in a general sense.

The fact that more people find it disrespectful in a general sense than are bothered by it as the name of a sports team can lead to various conclusions. How you wish to interpret that disconnect is your own concern, but what isn't right is trying to equate the two as the same because they aren't.

 

If you estimate that there are 5.2 million people with NA blood, then that is over 1 million who are find it disrespectful or 1 in 5.

So for fun...where are you getting that estimate for 5.2 million?

 

Furthermore 43% of NA's find it to be of some importance.

The problem here is you're automatically assigning negativity to the notion of importance. An individual who takes pride in the name and wants to see it stay could answer that they find it "important" as well.

The poll isn't the "slam dunk" others are changing because you seem to not have an understanding of polling methodology and are mistakenly tying portions of the poll together as if they are the same question.

some people are not so happy

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/05/19/reaction-to-latest-redskins-name-poll-despite-results-strong-emotions-remain/

"With racist roots directly linked to the genocide of Native Americans, it is just as hurtful and ugly as the N-word — especially for Native youth"

Really? Really? That's going to be your response to this poll? To ignore it entirely and turn around and immediately go "JUST AS HURTFUL AS THE N-WORD".

You just can't with some people...

I also enjoyed Harjo's response, which was basically "Your scientifically conducted poll doesn't fit with my anecdotal evidence of a life that has largely been spent in the midst of activists on the issue, and therefore is not relevant"

And then you have laying down the law to those ignorant native americans that a slur is a slur because non-natives say it is and to hell with the views of the people who are actually the targets of said supposed slur.