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

[Conn]

47 minutes ago, KevinthePRF said:

Sisko we just going to have to agree to disagree the name is offensive. IMO it's not to any Redskins fans or members of the Redskins organization. Just a few non football fans with a political agenda. And the sad part is that if the name is changed it changes nothing compared to what is owed to the Native American community by our country. It's less than a table scrap win. 

 

I would be absolutely shocked if the official announcement of the name change is not accompanied by a massive donation to NA groups as well as potentially other big moves to tie the team to advancing those interests long-term, if the name and imagery stays related. In fact I think you can almost guarantee that happens.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

5 hours ago, skeenzfan said:

 

Counter argument can be that changing the name will have ZERO negative impact on anyone's life so then what is the harm? .....

 

 

Don't generalise mate. I respect your POV but I'm the complete opposite going forward. 

 

I'll be losing something that's been one of the most important parts of my life for nigh on the past 4 decades. For all the wrong reasons. 

 

That's a pretty spectacular impact on my life personally speaking.

 

Hail 

 

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

7 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I wouldn't ever say that a poll is a good reason to do thing.  And as I've suggested, I'm not sure of the quality of the Berkley poll. 

 

But there's good reasons to think that the Post 2014 poll is badly flawed too (as I've said good polling data on this is scarce).

 

The biggest things it they again based their poll on self-identification and only polled ~500 people with no real efforts to normalized based on known population demographics.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/on-the-shameful-and-skewed-redskins-poll/

 

The Berkely poll is still larger with respect to the actual population of interest, more recent, and attempted to determine how engaged the people were in Native culture.  The Berkely polls shows that people more engaged in native culture are more likely to find it offensive and because it actually tried to poll Native Americans and not just people that identify as such, it seems likely it actually polled more people that are actually Native American.

 

the Post poll was in ‘16

 

and that article from the nation would add incredible bias to any result of the poll. The methodology via screening questions is the most valid approach vs the approach advocated by David Zrin. The Post doesn’t do “flawed” polling & publish it 

 

I run surveys for a living. There is no way in hell I would use the methodology that Berkely used.

[goskins10]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 4:48 PM, Califan007 said:

 

 

The WP poll wasn't flawed, but the Berkeley poll is.

 

I'm not gonna go into it, but the supposed "flaws" of the WP poll aren't flaws at all.

 

"We have twice as many Native people in our sample" - Um, so? When you understand how proportional representational polling works and the studies and history behind it, and when you also understand the 80/20 rule and Confidence Intervals, you'll understand that polling 1,000 offers no additional accuracy over polling 500. The studies on this were done up to like 10,000 people (possibly more), and they found that--when proportional representation is done correctly--the difference in results from polling 500 people and polling 10,000+ people was insanely small. As of right now, there is no indication that the Berkeley study followed the guidelines to assure they achieved successful proportional representation.

 

"The people self-identified as NAs" - Um, so? When taking anonymous polls we self-identify as male, female, black, white, Latino, Asian, age group, education level...why should NAs automatically be doubted? Like there's this large number of white dudes who just decide to say they're American Indians, and keep doing so on polls spaced 15 years apart? It's beyond obvious that it was the polling results--and little else--that made those doubts surface.

 

"The WP poll was conducted by phone, more likely to say you're not offended when talking to a person." - It's also far easier to zone out doing an online poll than it is talking to someone. AFter awhile you start just marking the same buttons over and over again. I've been doing usability testing for almost 20 years...having a moderator there (ie: a person lol) is the best way to guarantee good data. For anonymous polls, the topic of the poll matters in terms of anonymity, but the advantages of unmoderated online polling is the convenience provided the respondents and having access to a larger group of subjects. Accuracy is not one of those advantages.

 

 

And this part:

 

"The head of (the WP) polling department has reached out to us three times asking for us to break the data down differently, and we keep sending him what he’s asking for, because even though they wouldn’t give their data to us, we are going to be totally transparent."

 

Bull****. The WP polling data was available to everyone...was completely transparent from the get-go. There was even an article in the WP discussing it and how to access it. All the original criticisms of the WP poll (as wrong as they were) were based off of that transparency.

 

And this part:

 

"We ask really important questions about identity centrality...How important is being Native to your well-being? What are everyday things you do that are Native? So we can both look at people who are highly identified with being Native, for whom seeing a stereotype is going to hurt them, because being Native is important to who they are."

 

I hope everyone can see, when it comes to accurate polling data of a demographic, how insane the above is. Doing something like this when polling the black community would raise a ****load of red flags--"how important is being black to your well-being? Did you attend an all-back college? Would you say you have lived in primarily white neighborhoods most of your life? Do you contribute to black charities? So we can look at people who highly identify with being black, and for whom seeing a black stereotype will hurt them, because they take pride in being black".

 

 

As much as I did not want the name to change, what I really do not want is for the name change to suddenly apply validity to every claim, poll, and tall tale that has been tossed around "proving" reskins is racist. I've already seen a bazillion twidiots spreading the "Redskins = bloody scalp" myth again and doing so from the position that since the name is being changed, it proves the story is true. They are running with it, patting themselves on the back, using it as proof yet again. This was put to bed a long time ago. But now, might as well add it to the history books: redskin does indeed equal Indian scalp, the logo/emblem is indeed a racist caricature, remove all mention of "Redskins" from the NFL Hall Of Fame, equate wearing a Redskins jersey to wearing a KKK hood and robes, compare wearing the Skins uniform to wearing the Confederate flag on the field...

 

And yes, all of those comments have already been made.

 

 

@PeterMP          @Califan007 did a pretty good job of highlighting just a few reasons the Berkley poll was quite flawed. It's worth reading so here it is so  you don't have to look.

 

My dad's wife in Native American - in the Maryland area. She asked at a meeting not to long ago if the name bothered them - the answer was interesting. At first most said they did not care. But as the conversation took place, some changed and decided it was a problem. In the end, what they said and what I have seen from many NA groups, is that like the name or not, all would appreciate more direct support to get out of poverty than what a NFL teams name is.

 

BTW: Just to be clear I am OK changing the name given the current events. It shows compassion for those the name is offensive to and while it will not solve any racism issues directly, it may at least help drive the conversation in a positive way.

[RichmondRedskin88]

I find it amusing people are like if they lose fans so what they’ll gain twice as many. Umm what?  Name change or not no one wants to root for a garbage team.  Just because we got some talent doesn’t take away 30 years of suck.  If we were good/winning Super Bowls regularly we’d have a massive bandwagon fan base and people would be flipping out over a name change in defense of it.  If you think new fans are jumping on their wagon because of name your nuts.  No fan who already has a team would voluntarily jump into our dumpster fire unless maybe a Raider fan.  Even then probably no. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

31 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

I find it amusing people are like if they lose fans so what they’ll gain twice as many. 

 

If the number of fans we loose from changing the name is 3, there is a good chance we might gain 6. It’s the law of small numbers. When the numbers are sufficiently small it’s easy to get large percentage gains. Other than that i mainly agree no one is jumping ship to a dumpster fire.

[Bonez3]

9 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

I will go a step further - for every fan they lose they will gain 2 or more in return.  This reminds me of when they first started talking about making restaurants no smoking. It was going to be the end of the economy! People would stop going to restaurants in droves. They would all go out of business. 

 

The reality? For the most part the restaurants who went no smoking added business, and a lot! Turns out more people were staying away from rests due to the smoke than we willing to stay away once you couldn't smoke inside anymore. Eventually people who originally held out realized it happened and it was not being changed back - and even some admitted it was nice to eat without someone blowing smoke in your face. 

 

They will make the name change and some will refuse to support the team. The majority will still support the team and there will be some that stopped becasue of the name that will come back. 

 

In 10 yrs, it will be a faint memory and most no one will care. 

 

 

Some people will care, likely a minority... probably more than who are offended by the name now. 

 

I have resigned my fandom of the team. The team is close to tattooed on my soul, but it's just ridiculous and of course its not a battle worth fighting. 

 

i'll be a New England Patriots fan if the name changes. I truly feel investing in a name like that will be hard to protest, safe play and I'm already a Celtics and Red Sox fan

[RedskinsFan44]

8 hours ago, -JB- said:

Stadium at old RFK site is the only option!.

Best option but near National Harbor is a fair bet too.

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

the Post poll was in ‘16

 

and that article from the nation would add incredible bias to any result of the poll. The methodology via screening questions is the most valid approach vs the approach advocated by David Zrin. The Post doesn’t do “flawed” polling & publish it 

 

I run surveys for a living. There is no way in hell I would use the methodology that Berkely used.

 

@goskins10

 

Again, I've never said the Berkely poll isn't flawed.  And even the Post acknowledges the difficulties in survey Native American populations.  Though I'd be curious as to why you think it is bad, and the Post okay.

 

In terms of @Califan007, I'd ask whether than just insulting the people, maybe consider they are telling the truth.  The link in the articles ("Exact question wording, order and percentage results can be found at wapo.st/pollarchive.") take you to this page:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polling/2019/05/24/washington-post-poll-archive/

 

On that page, you can find this link:

 

"12/16 to 4/14 - Washington Post - Native Americans - Full trend and detailed methods"

 

Which takes you too this page:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/?itid=lk_inline_manual_133

 

Which of course doesn't actually contain that poll that I see.  So no, today if I want the actual total results (e.g. demographic), etc., I can't (easily) get it based on following their links.

 

(Now, I'm not suggesting that the Washington Post is doing something untowards and is trying to cover up a flawed poll vs. just an large organization with lots of links and over time it is just hard to keep track of where all of the links go and something has changed since 2016, and they haven't bothered to update it. 

 

And I'll point out that took me like 2 minutes.  Rather than claiming something that isn't true is true, I took 2 minutes to try it myself.)

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

10 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The most ridiculous part of this debate is it will only be a debate before the name is changed. Once the name is changed the people yelling over it will grab a hard seltzer and watch the game, it’s what we do. 

 

Same thing with a lot of this stuff we argue over. Once it’s done it’s done and no one spends time thinking about it anymore.

 

Just do it already so this pointless debate can stop.

 

I think there are going to be people still calling them the Redskins after.  Still wear the gear, still sing the song after a touchdown.  Probably to be a contrarian, probably to remind people around them where they came down on the name change debate and what side they're on.

 

People still call the Wizards the Bullets from time to time.  IIRC, that team and that name wasn't nearly as beloved as the Redskins name and team.  

[dckey]

I've been a redskins fan from birth and have not ever felt that it was a slur, but after thinking about this for awhile and seeing the change in America that is happening, I can understand why a name change is necessary.  I keep hearing that 80-90% of native americans don't think that the name is offensive and I use to state this as well, but when I think about being a African American and realizing that we are only 13% of the US population and want, need change.  It makes me realize that the 10-20% of Native Americans that do believe it is offensive have a voice as well that should be considered.

[goskins10]

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

@goskins10

 

Again, I've never said the Berkely poll isn't flawed.  And even the Post acknowledges the difficulties in survey Native American populations.  Though I'd be curious as to why you think it is bad, and the Post okay.

 

In terms of @Califan007, I'd ask whether than just insulting the people, maybe consider they are telling the truth.  The link in the articles take you to this page:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polling/2019/05/24/washington-post-poll-archive/

 

On that page, you can find this link:

 

"12/16 to 4/14 - Washington Post - Native Americans - Full trend and detailed methods"

 

Which takes you too this page:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/?itid=lk_inline_manual_133

 

Which of course doesn't actually contain that poll that I see.  So no, today if I want the actual total results (e.g. demographic), etc., I can't (easily) get it based on following their links.

 

(Now, I'm not suggesting that the Washington Post is doing something untowards and is trying to cover up a flawed poll vs. just an large organization with lots of links and over time it is just hard to keep track of where all of the links go and something has changed since 2016, and they haven't bothered to update it. 

 

And I'll point out that took me like 2 minutes.  Rather than claiming something that isn't true is true, I took 2 minutes to try it myself.)

 

 

 

I never said this - "Though I'd be curious as to why you think it is bad, and the Post okay."  Was just showing that Califan did a good job of exposing that the Berkley poll was very poor. The Post poll has flaws as do all flaws. Just to me less than the Berkley poll at least in terms of the name. 

 

I think we agree both are flawed to some extent. From what I can tell you feel the Berkley poll is less flawed. I disagree. But honestly it's not a big deal. I just thought califan did a pretty good job of outlining some of the key problems with the Berkley poll. 

 

In the end the name is changing and I can live with that. I cannot se me changing teams based on the last name. And they will remain the Redskins to me until I die. So I could care less what they call themselves. I will be respectful of others but no one can make me think - I remember when John RIggins was a Warrior. They can try I guess - but not liking their chances for success. 

 

I respect peoples right to do what they want,. including dropping the team. But to me that just seems a bit of an over-reaction. It's just a name. The team is still the same. 

 

 

 

[National Defense]

glad the team is doing this--this change is completely appropriate now.   

 

when people use the same arguments to defend the team name as are those being used by the defenders of KKK-supported statues installed 100 years ago it should tell you something. 

[JoeJacobyHOForRIOT]

 nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting—three hundred million people all with the same face.”

 

 

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

 

Our only true life is in the future. We shall take part in it as handfuls of dust and splinters of bone. But how far away that future may be, there is no knowing. It might be a thousand years. At present nothing is possible except to extend the area of sanity little by little. We cannot act collectively. We can only spread our knowledge outwards from individual to individual, generation after generation. In the face of the Thought Police there is no other way.”

 

[grego]

8 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Let's see, can we think about why the Berkeley poll might be more accurate?

 

Oh, maybe it wasn't done 14 years ago?  Maybe its possible that people's attitudes have changed over the last 14 years.  Like maybe based on polling 14 years ago, most Americans were against same sex marriages and about 1/2 of Americans thought that same sex should be illegal?

 

And maybe here's another:  It actually surveyed more Native Americans. 

 

How about, it was actually setup to capture what actual Native Americans thought and wasn't a throw on question to a national survey that wasn't actually designed to capture what Native Americans thought and didn't attempt to representatively capture Native American attitudes?

 

https://ipclinic.org/2015/08/03/designers-of-that-2004-annenberg-survey-on-the-redskins-name-the-sample-was-unpresentative/

 

As part of that, the Berkely poll delved more into why people said they were Native American (e.g. it asked about their involvement in Native American culture) and so isn't just based on self identification.

 

I've got no real issue if you say there is no good polling on this issue (which is essentially what I said in my first post), but to hold onto a poll that is 14 years old, that surveyed fewer Native Americans, and wasn't at the time designed to actually capture Native American attitudes in a representative manner over a more recent, larger poll that was designed specifically to capture the opinions of Native Americans is just stupid. 

 

I agree with the idea that peoples attitudes change over time, and had even thought of your same example of gay marriage. while I do believe that that would be a large factor in polling differences of the general population, i'm not sure how much it would change among actual native americans. I wouldn't agree that the Annenberg poll didn't capture how native americans thought about the name, but I would agree with the general finding of the Berkeley study- that the 'more' native one self identifies, the more likely they are to not like the name. 

 

this is not unlike the poll published a few years ago that was meant to debunk the Annenberg poll where native American activists (essentially) were surveyed- it matters who, specifically, you are asking. 

 

there has been so much dishonest information and so many bad faith arguments put out when it comes to this topic. I can't recall the last article I read concerning the name that didn't contain at least one fake or misleading point, and they rarely concede or mention points in the names favor. this generally leads me to believe that any 'new' information is tainted. I would be interested in an in depth study about native americans attitudes and why they feel the way they do- the latter part being of particular interest to me, in large part because of the aforementioned misinformation. 

 

when it comes down to it at this time, I don't have any feeling about the name. not anymore. the only thing I care about is if the arguments for and against are in good faith. 

[Simmsy]

As a black person I'm kinda disappointed in this whole thing. Changing the names of things, taking down things and firing idiots who say dumb stuff on camera is great...but I want police reform. Is this what I have to settle for? A Redskins name change and a cancelled, kid's tv show about puppies as cops? I'll say this as nicely as possible: this is what happens when white people get a hold of the narrative...on either side. They set the boundaries and now I'm a racist if I don't fall in line with what the majority of white people arbitrarily decide is now racism.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

I never said this - "Though I'd be curious as to why you think it is bad, and the Post okay."  Was just showing that Califan did a good job of exposing that the Berkley poll was very poor. The Post poll has flaws as do all flaws. Just to me less than the Berkley poll at least in terms of the name. 

 

That question was more put to SHF who said he would never do a survey the way that Berkely does (while doing such surveys is a big part of Qualtrics business, which is what the Berkely group used).

 

I wouldn't say that one is more flawed than the other based on what I know.  But given all other things are being equal, I'd lean toward the larger more recent survey.

 

Though since, you've directly commented, I'd ask why you think that Califan's post shows that it was "very poor" and the Post one not?

 

(From my perspective Califan brought up 4 issues:

 

1.  I've already addressed the idea that the Washington Post data is public.  It at least isn't easily public today.  Maybe it was in 2016, but it isn't hard to believe that the Berkely group wasn't able to access it online in 2020.

 

2.  The numbers.  While when dealing with millions of people, the difference between 500 and 1000 isn't very significant.  But no pollster is going to turn a larger poll unless there is a reason to.

 

3.  How you do polls doesn't tend to affect the result much IF the poll is done well.  Online vs. phone aren't very different.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/07/phone-vs-online-surveys-why-do-respondents-answers-sometimes-differ-by-mode/

 

If anything, given the topic, it seems that an online poll is probably better.  The topic isn't overly sensitive, but generally online polls can be done well and if there is a sensitive topic online tends to be better than the phone.

 

But that there's a big difference of the other that makes one "very poor" and the other not, just isn't reasonable.

 

4.  In terms of his point about the language used in the study and how we wouldn't do that to African Americans, it is in fact done.  The Berkely study actually discusses that (and the leader of the Berkely study is an African American):

 

"First, this literature largely focuses on the function of identity centrality for non-Native racial minorities, showing, for example, that African American college students who are high (vs. low) in identity centrality report experiencing more discrimination, which in turn predicts greater psychological distress (Sellers & Shelton, 2003)."

 

From my perspective, two of the things Califan said appear to be just wrong.  People do study African Americans and their responses to different things and in the context of doing so do study and take into account how important identifying as African American or how strongly they identify as African American is to them.  The WashPo data today isn't easily available to the public.

 

So none of those things point to a "very poor" survey vs. a poll only flawed in the context of being flawed in the way that all polls are flawed.)

 

I don't know much about Qualtrics and how they do their online panels.  But assuming they do a good job at making them, there is no real reason to believe it is wrong vs. the Washington Post survey.  And I certainly have no reason to believe that they do a less good job than the Washington Post at setting up a representative population of Native Americans.

[primetime441]

Snyder should leverage this; I would go to the D.C. counsel and tell them they're a huge factor in the name change. If he can somehow void the Landover deal and build a new stadium in D.C. within the new two years, this "new" franchise has a chance. Otherwise, our already dwindling fanbase will continue falling into abyss.  I'd also go to the NFL and try to get at least 5 primetime games. He's going to need exposure.

[Spaceman Spiff]

27 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

As a black person I'm kinda disappointed in this whole thing. Changing the names of things, taking down things and firing idiots who say dumb stuff on camera is great...but I want police reform. Is this what I have to settle for? A Redskins name change and a cancelled, kid's tv show about puppies as cops? I'll say this as nicely as possible: this is what happens when white people get a hold of the narrative...on either side. They set the boundaries and now I'm a racist if I don't fall in line with what the majority of white people arbitrarily decide is now racism.

 

Should be shouted from the rooftops.   Saw a great meme a few weeks ago, maybe it was on here, I can't remember.  A black guy said "I want police reform!" and then it was like, NBC:  "Hey, we've got Black Bachelor!"  "No more Aunt Jemima!"  and on and on...and then at the end the black guy was like "...yeah, but I wanted police reform...?"

[Momma There Goes That Man]

53 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

1984

 

 

This is embarrassing

5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Should be shouted from the rooftops.   Saw a great meme a few weeks ago, maybe it was on here, I can't remember.  A black guy said "I want police reform!" and then it was like, NBC:  "Hey, we've got Black Bachelor!"  "No more Aunt Jemima!"  and on and on...and then at the end the black guy was like "...yeah, but I wanted police reform...?"

 

I don't know why we can't have both. People are working on police reform. NBC can't legislate police reform but what they can do is use the moment to be more inclusive. What others can do is use the moment to remove statues and monuments that glorify racism. 

 

I accept all these positive changes but if the ball gets dropped or we come up short on the intended goal, then we pick it up and try again. Doesn't make small minor improvements made along the path bad or comical or ill-intentioned

[Jumbo]

notice how the craziest frothiest posts on the matter (among many others) can be attached to certain commonly noted demographics?

 

i'm thinking of three categories in particular  

 

and i'm in two of them  

 

so i hope ya'all will try keep in mind as i will that even if you are sure you have sufficient cause to "hate a group" (i.e. it's ok with most folks to hate "all nazis"  though that's been less universal and less clear the last few years ) always allow an escape hatch for individual cases who may be redeemable (i accept i may not qualify)

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

This is embarrassing

 

I don't know why we can't have both. People are working on police reform. NBC can't legislate police reform but what they can do is use the moment to be more inclusive. What others can do is use the moment to remove statues and monuments that glorify racism. 

 

I accept all these positive changes but if the ball gets dropped or we come up short on the intended goal, then we pick it up and try again. Doesn't make small minor improvements made along the path bad or comical or ill-intentioned

 

I agree, they're changes for good and bit by bit they work towards good goals, however people do take their eye off the ball.  I'm pro-name change and I'm glad it's happening but it sucks that it took sponsors to twist Danny's arm to do it.  

[JSSkinz]

41 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

As a black person I'm kinda disappointed in this whole thing. Changing the names of things, taking down things and firing idiots who say dumb stuff on camera is great...but I want police reform. Is this what I have to settle for? A Redskins name change and a cancelled, kid's tv show about puppies as cops? I'll say this as nicely as possible: this is what happens when white people get a hold of the narrative...on either side. They set the boundaries and now I'm a racist if I don't fall in line with what the majority of white people arbitrarily decide is now racism.

Thanks god someone said it, its white women, they control the narrative on pretty much everything but they like to slide out of the camera frame when it comes to accountability.

[Spaceman Spiff]

24 minutes ago, primetime441 said:

Snyder should leverage this; I would go to the D.C. counsel and tell them they're a huge factor in the name change. If he can somehow void the Landover deal and build a new stadium in D.C. within the new two years, this "new" franchise has a chance. Otherwise, our already dwindling fanbase will continue falling into abyss.  I'd also go to the NFL and try to get at least 5 primetime games. He's going to need exposure.

 

No way they give us 5 prime time games, unless it's against a top tier team and we're essentially their homecoming opponent, ie, doormat.  IIRC, we don't have any prime time games this year and it's because we've been bad to mediocre for so long.  The NFL also doesn't want post commercial break shots of a half empty Fed Ex Field, too.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

27 minutes ago, primetime441 said:

Snyder should leverage this; I would go to the D.C. counsel and tell them they're a huge factor in the name change. If he can somehow void the Landover deal and build a new stadium in D.C. within the new two years, this "new" franchise has a chance. Otherwise, our already dwindling fanbase will continue falling into abyss.  I'd also go to the NFL and try to get at least 5 primetime games. He's going to need exposure.

what leverage does he have. His sponsors told him to drop it Danno...