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

[tshile]

Keep trying to shift what I said.

If in 100 years "The Boy Scouts" is offensive, then The Boy Scouts should change their name.

If 100 years from now, the name "Disney" is offensive, then Disney should change their name. (Doing otherwise would be bad business.)

I'm not trying to shift anything you said.

 

I originally said that if in 100 years a poll said they all found redskins offensive, that the name still shouldn't be changed because we have proof that the offense is made up. They decided to take offense. We have clear proof that this other meaning exists, so it doesn't matter if people are offended in 100 years; if they are, they chose to be, and we (The team) shouldn't be forced to do anything about it.

 

You said you disagreed.

 

"I am not aware of any linguistic law stating that if something was not offensive the day it was created, then it cannot ever be offensive, later.

Or, to turn things around: If I ever support changing the name, it won't be because of some etymological analysis of its origin. It will be because it is offending people, at that time. (And I don't want to be offending people)."

 

Then you said this:

"Well, guess what? It's POSSIBLE to use the word "boy" in an offensive manner, too. But that's not an argument for why The Boy Scouts need to change their name."

And I fail to see how the two don't conflict. It's possible to use "redskins" in an offensive manner, but we also know that's not the intent and that the other intent/context exists. 100 years and people deciding to take offense doesn't change that.

[Larry]

Or perhaps, the 20% or so that  took offense is because they interpeted term "Redskin" to be a reference to the football team since in all probability that's the only contex they've ever heard the term used. Damm Cowboys fans. I'd be willing to be no one from this survey has ever been call 'A REDSKIN" AS A PERJORATIVE. NO ONE.

It's possible that you're right, but I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion.

We've had at least two posters in this thread who have personally heard the term "redskin" used, by racists, as a racial insult. (In one case, directed at a Native directly. In the other, behind their backs.)

I have no trouble at all believing that yes, the term has been used that way, by at least some people.

It's a tempting notion to believe in. We see the name change movement represented by people like Harjo and Hallbritter, and we know that they're liars. So it's tempting to jump to the conclusion that the entire name change movement is.

 

But I'd strongly advise against it.  9% of Natives isn't a majority.  But it is a whole bunch of people.  Roughly half a million.  I'd say that while there no doubt are some political opportunists in that number, I'd assume that the vast majority are honest people who actually do find the name offensive. 

 

They aren't the majority.  But they are real.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

So, the argument seems strange to me. People I meet are people. I may identify them as belonging to a race, gender, religion, culture, etc. but that's not how I greet them. Who does that?

 

NSFW

 

[grego]

But I'd strongly advise against it. 9% of Natives isn't a majority. But it is a whole bunch of people.

Its a lot of people. But 9% of any population in a poll is always..... Questionable.

Dalia Mogahed wrote that 93% of the Muslim population felt that the 9/11 attacks were "completely unjustified" according to a poll. That meant nearly 100 million actual people felt otherwise.

And she thought that was a good result.

I've heard that 16% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. 10% believe elvis is alive. More than that believe in aliens or Bigfoot.

10% of any given population believe basically anything. Given that a large percentage of that 9% offended are almost certainly offended by a made up story about scalps, I'm not sure how serious to take this number. Or those people, be they native American, black, white, Asian, fat, cross eyed, red haired (sorry, bang) or whatever.

[Larry]

Given that a large percentage of that 9% offended are almost certainly offended by a made up story about scalps, I'm not sure how serious to take this number.

Given that you have absolutely no support for that claim, . . .

And given that, let's say that half of them fit your description, that's still 250,000 people, . . .

I'd assert that my assertion that we should not just dismiss all of them, stands.

 

I'm not saying that we need to bow down to the 9%.  Just saying let's not just blanket dismiss all of them. 

 

They're entitled to their opinion, too.  (Even the suckers who've bought an urban legend.) 

[grego]

Shouldnt you be in bed? I posted that like 5 minutes ago. I thought I'd get at least an hour or so to contemplate my point.

Sheesh.

[jnhay]

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. It's not a new phenomenon for different people to interpret the same word differently, and have neither group be wrong. Reference this list to see words that mean the opposite of themselves http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=49834

So, I don't disregard the offended. I think they're totally justified. But I feel no guilt in choosing to continue to support the positive interpretation of the word redskin, especially since many native Americans agree.

[Bang]

Well put, jnhay.

 

~Bang

[Spearfeather]

I don't disregard them, ( and I don't think grego was completely disregarding them either), I just think some of them are basing their offense on things that simply aren't true.

 

But I feel no guilt in choosing to continue to support the positive interpretation of the word redskin, especially since many native Americans agree.          

 

 

And I completely agree with this.

[grhqofb5]

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. It's not a new phenomenon for different people to interpret the same word differently, and have neither group be wrong. Reference this list to see words that mean the opposite of themselves http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=49834

So, I don't disregard the offended. I think they're totally justified. But I feel no guilt in choosing to continue to support the positive interpretation of the word redskin, especially since many native Americans agree.

 

Oh oh oh!!! My two favorites are inflammable and equity.  One means flammable and the other refers to a claim not involving money.

[Old Bay]

...inflammable and equity. 

 

[grego]

I don't disregard them, ( and I don't think grego was completely disregarding them either), I just think some of them are basing their offense on things that simply aren't true.

Of the three main players in the name change camp, 2 of them - harjo and blackhorse - have specifically cited the name coming from scalps as their main reason for offense. The third - halbritter - at least tacitly endorses that notion, but appears to stick to the slur argument, saying natives was called redskin at gunpoint while being forced off of their lands.

Nobody has argued that the name can not be a slur, and if someone were called that in a derogatory way, it's understandable that they may view all contexts of the word negatively.

That's a conversation that can be had. And you can at least have a discussion about natives or other racial groups or ethnicities being mascots.

I still don't know what to do with someone when they're pushing a myth as the reason for offense. And I don't buy that it doesn't matter - of course it matters if your goal is to convince someone that you're so offended that a business must change their name.

It doesn't mean you're not offended. It just means it's not someone else's problem.

A right to not be offended doesn't exist, even if it's based on an actual fact.

I really don't know what to do with people like that.

[nonniey]

It's possible that you're right, but I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion.

We've had at least two posters in this thread who have personally heard the term "redskin" used, by racists, as a racial insult. (In one case, directed at a Native directly. In the other, behind their backs.)

I have no trouble at all believing that yes, the term has been used that way, by at least some people.

It's a tempting notion to believe in. We see the name change movement represented by people like Harjo and Hallbritter, and we know that they're liars. So it's tempting to jump to the conclusion that the entire name change movement is.

 

But I'd strongly advise against it.  9% of Natives isn't a majority.  But it is a whole bunch of people.  Roughly half a million.  I'd say that while there no doubt are some political opportunists in that number, I'd assume that the vast majority are honest people who actually do find the name offensive. 

 

They aren't the majority.  But they are real.

To be frank I don't believe those two posters. And I have trouble believing the term has been used that way over past half century and maybe even longer.

[The Professor]

It's unfortunate that you can't express your opinion on this board.  I was banned for expressing mine, and apparently it goes against the collective here.

 

The point that many of you are missing is that it's reasonably acceptable that any reference to skin color is offensive.  Citing this poll because it's convenient to your view doesn't tell anyone anything, they've equally covered the fact that the American Indian has bigger issues than this name.

 

Face it it's not a mainstream term because the Indian population is a little over 1% of this country.  Compare that to the 15% African American population and the derogatory term used to insult them...kind of makes sense why you haven't heard it.

 

[Sniffler]

It's unfortunate that you can't express your opinion on this board.  I was banned for expressing mine...

I'm pretty sure that wasn't why you got banned.

[Larry]

Edited out

Not a Mod, here. So I have absolutely no knowledge of the workings of the inner circle. But, . . .

1). I'm willing to bet that you were given a TEMPORARY ban, because you violated at least one of the board rules. Multiple times.

2). And I'm pretty sure that you're violating at least one more, here.

3). And I strongly suspect that, coming back from a temporary ban, and violating a rule with your first post after getting out of jail, does not normally correlate to a long future.

Now, I'm intentionally not quoting your post, to give you an opportunity to self-edit your own post, in an attempt to avoid divine retribution.

(Not that I actually expect you to take it.)

---

The point that many of you are missing is that it's reasonably acceptable that any reference to skin color is offensive.

And yet, 90% of Native Americans appear to disagree with you.

[The Professor]

There's nothing wrong with anything I just posted.  Could you enlighten me?  Are you not allowed to say "mainstream term?"

 

90% of Native Americans don't disagree.  Self identifying NA's seemed to not care.  There's a pretty big difference there.

[TK]

Take the next 5 days to do what has been suggested to you before by other members here, read more, post less. Maybe go watch some Gilligan's Island too so you'll get all the boat jokes. And you should probably go read the Rules here while you're at it, because your first post back from your break will be a "thank you for giving me another chance instead of booting me" post.

It's unfortunate that you can't express your opinion on this board. I was banned for expressing mine, and apparently it goes against the collective here.

The point that many of you are missing is that it's reasonably acceptable that any reference to skin color is offensive. Citing this poll because it's convenient to your view doesn't tell anyone anything, they've equally covered the fact that the American Indian has bigger issues than this name.

Face it it's not a mainstream term because the Indian population is a little over 1% of this country. Compare that to the 15% African American population and the derogatory term used to insult them...kind of makes sense why you haven't heard it.

Call me crazy for trying here, but you've got more chance here. And to understand what I mean by that, go read Rule #18.

[PCS]

There's nothing wrong with anything I just posted.  Could you enlighten me? "mainstream term?"

 

 

 

http://es.redskins.com/forum-12/announcement-11-updated-rules-and-guidelines/

 

 

Refrain from unfounded charges of censorship regarding any moderator action taken against a member on the grounds an ExtremeSkins Staffer (or team official) simply didn’t like the content of the opinion.

 

If you receive a moderating action and happen to have expressed a viewpoint in opposition to that of an ES Staff member, the action is due to an actual rule violation and not due to the content of the differing viewpoint. ES Staff members have opinions and may express them with all the rights of any member. Any Staff member's viewpoints that may be contrary to those of any other member are never the grounds for any action against that member. Unfounded charges of bias are not tolerated.

[Larry]

90% of Native Americans don't disagree.  Self identifying NA's seemed to not care.  There's a pretty big difference there.

Uh, yes, they do.

You: Any reference to skin color is offensive.

90% of Native Americans: The name of the Washington Redskins is not offensive, to me.

Good thing they've got you, to tell them when to be offended.

[daveakl]

There's nothing wrong with anything I just posted. Could you enlighten me? Are you not allowed to say "mainstream term?"

90% of Native Americans don't disagree. Self identifying NA's seemed to not care. There's a pretty big difference there.

It depends on how you look at the poll.

Did the post call people and start with "are you American Indian" and then go from there? If so then it's highly doubtful that a significant portion only simply "identifies" with being American Indian as you are insinuating.

Now if the post called people and asked all these questions and then at the end said "oh by the way, are you American Indian" then you may have a point.

[The Professor]

Uh, yes, they do.

You: Any reference to skin color is offensive.

90% of Native Americans: The name of the Washington Redskins is not offensive, to me.

Good thing they've got you, to tell them when to be offended.

 

You are already in the spin zone?  I said that it's reasonably acceptable that a person could find a reference to skin color offensive.

Move along dude.

http://es.redskins.com/forum-12/announcement-11-updated-rules-and-guidelines/

 

Refrain from unfounded charges lol.

They said I had an old account and was using this one to "sneak by" security.

Until two weeks ago I NEVER had an account on this site.  That's not unfounded...it's just the truth.

It depends on how you look at the poll.

Did the post call people and start with "are you American Indian" and then go from there? If so then it's highly doubtful that a significant portion only simply "identifies" with being American Indian as you are insinuating.

Now if the post called people and asked all these questions and then at the end said "oh by the way, are you American Indian" then you may have a point.

 

I have no idea if they started or ended with the question.

Some seem to miss that the poll found that they "did not object."

That isn't supporting it lol.  It's not against it either.  It's indifference because they have bigger issues.

This is so no hard to fathom.

[Larry]

Did the post call people and start with "are you American Indian" and then go from there? If so then it's highly doubtful that a significant portion only simply "identifies" with being American Indian as you are insinuating.

Now if the post called people and asked all these questions and then at the end said "oh by the way, are you American Indian" then you may have a point.

The Post explained their methodology, in one of the articles.

They surveyed people about other issues, first. (I think it was about the election).

Then they asked demographic questions. Age, race, gender, approximate income, education level, marital status.

THEN, if the person said they were Native, they got asked about the name.

It's the same methodology Annenberg used. And I think it's the correct one. For the reason you identified.

Ask people about the football team, and then ask them about their race, and people (on both sides) have a motive to falsely claim to be NA.

But ask them who they're voting for, for President, then ask their race? Very few people are going to lie. No motive.

[daveakl]

Then one needs to either stop with the "because they are self identifying it can't be valid" nonsense or recognize that every poll is self identifying.

The question was "offensive or doesn't bother"

By the nature of the question 90% found that it was not offensive.

73% found the word not disrespectful

80% not offended if someone called them a Redskin

48% not football fans.

Put this poll out with literally ANY other word and you would not get these results.

[The Professor]

By the way 504 is .01% of the Native American population.

Who thinks thats a sound sampling?