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

[ConcordNCSkinsFan]

I would tell any media or fans complaining about the team's name to put your money where your mouth is. If they feel it's such an offensive term then boycott Redskins and NFL sponsors most notably Fed Ex. Do more than refuse to put the team name on your little website Peter King. Refuse to cover or talk about the team period. Same with you Mike Florio. If the Post and ESPN wants to provide a platform for their little minion reporters to be critical of the team name then why don't they refuse to cover the team as well. My point is that if any of these media outlets was really serious about the wanting to change the name and not just hopping on a Political Corectness Bandwagon to show everyone how "Progressive" they are then they would do more than compose "look at me" columns, tweets, and opinions. 

[Predicto]

I would tell any media or fans complaining about the team's name to put your money where your mouth is. If they feel it's such an offensive term then boycott Redskins and NFL sponsors most notably Fed Ex. Do more than refuse to put the team name on your little website Peter King. Refuse to cover or talk about the team period. Same with you Mike Florio. If the Post and ESPN wants to provide a platform for their little minion reporters to be critical of the team name then why don't they refuse to cover the team as well. My point is that if any of these media outlets was really serious about the wanting to change the name and not just hopping on a Political Corectness Bandwagon to show everyone how "Progressive" they are then they would do more than compose "look at me" columns, tweets, and opinions. 

 

 

I don't want to do that.  This is my team.  This has always been my team.  

[Xameil]

That does seem to be the attitude on here a lot of the time.  

 

 

How about the Wetbacks?  

 

The reason I ask is because youy are making a false equivalence.  The name of this team is not the "Aztecas" or the "Mayas" or the "Apaches" or the "Comanches" - it is the Redskins.   No one thinks the word "Aztec" is derogatory.  SOME people think the word "Redskin" is derogatory.   Therein lies the problem.  

 

 

and most of the SOME aren't even Native American...go figure...

[Destino]

I just don't feel Snyder will ever come across as the right voice for defending it. He's come off as a jerk too many times so when something like this happens, its hard to take him as sincere....even if he is.

 

I agree with this.  He's the guy that claimed devil horns drawn on his picture was anti-Semitic.  He's not the guy I want addressing this issue or bringing up history that includes a famously racist owner.  Make no mistake about it the Redskins history is something both sides of this debate will be eager to bring up.  Dan's blunt tone is not the right voice to talk everyone through an issue as sensitive and complicated as this one.

[Predicto]

and most of the SOME aren't even Native American...go figure...

 

This is absolutely true, and some of them are complete clowns.

 

I just want to keep the discussion on topic.  The controversy here is arising because the word "Redskin" may (or may not) be a problem, given the history and the intent and the dictionary defintions and all of the other things tht we are discussing.

 

We are NOT having this problem because 1) the team is called the "Washington Aztecs" or "Washington Powhatans", or 2) because everyone in the league is out to get us because of our success or 3) because we have a marching band, or 4) because they give out participatory trophies in kids sports, or 4) because the media wants to distract us from real problems on Indian reservations, or 5) any of the other extraneous stuff that keeps popping up in this thread.  

 

We have a bullseye on our backs right now because some people are uncomfortable with the word "Redskin" as the name of a 21st century sports team.  That is the issue.   

[TheGoodBits]

That does seem to be the attitude on here a lot of the time.

How about the Wetbacks?

The reason I ask is because youy are making a false equivalence. The name of this team is not the "Aztecas" or the "Mayas" or the "Apaches" or the "Comanches" - it is the Redskins. No one thinks the word "Aztec" is derogatory. SOME people think the word "Redskin" is derogatory. Therein lies the problem.

That's a terrible analogy. Nobody doesn't find that offensive.

I'm not an insensitive person. If people are offended by a name then it should be changed. Redskins is tricky though. The origins and usage over time don't point to it being a derogatory term overall (though admittedly there are examples of it). As such, the only real attempt at finding out if NA's are offended by it points to them not being offended.

I stand by the point that there are a great number of NA's that take genuine pride in the name and the imagery, as a respectful representation of the culture of their ancestors. There is anecdotal evidence that supports this, from the great number of Redskins fans you find on reservations to the fact that many NA-majority high schools use the name Redskins.

In my opinion, and I admittedly have no evidence of it other than the anecdotal stuff I previously mentioned, the NA's supporters of the name outnumber those that are offended by it. If the percentage of offended is higher than the 9% in the Annenberg poll then that could change my opinion, but again that is the only evidence we have of it.

Now my real issue with the name change debate that is currently raging on is that the NA voice being heard does not represent the NA voice overall. Media has highjacked this issue, has waged a public opinion war against the name with no real attempt to get to the bottom of the issue. The name is automatically assumed to be universally derogatory because it has the word "skin" in it. References to skin color have historically been overwhelmingly derogatory, but it doesn't mean that it is in this case. To NA's, it might not be any more derogatory than Caucasian is to white people. We don't know, because nobody has bothered to ASK them. But that doesn't stop people from going on TV and decrying the name as 'awful, terrible,' etc despite having no real knowledge of it.

[gortiz]

Ummm....  why can't people worry about both things?

 

because the name issue is minuscule compared to the  issues I listed and one second wasted on the name is entirely too much time. 

 

worrying about the name means you are not giving ALL the energy and resources  and more importantly - PUBLICITY - to the other. 

 

THAT'S WHY. 

[Predicto]

That's a terrible analogy. Nobody doesn't find that offensive.

I'm not an insensitive person. If people are offended by a name then it should be changed. Redskins is tricky though. The origins and usage over time don't point to it being a derogatory term overall (though admittedly there are examples of it). As such, the only real attempt at finding out if NA's are offended by it points to them not being offended.

 

 

 

You are right, "Wetbacks" is a poor analogy - from the point of view of a Redskins fan.  Apparently, it's not such a poor analogy from the point of view of at least some who are not Redskins fans.  

 

Putting that aside, I used "Wetback" because I was speaking to someone of Mexican descent, and wanted him to understand why the controversy over the word "Redskin" is not the same as his discussion of a hypothetical team called the "Aztecs."   

 

As I have said before, I think the best analogy would be the "Washington Coloreds."   Lots of old people call African Americans "colored folk."   They are not intentionally intending anything derogatory by it, but the term has fallen out of favor in modern usage and no one young uses it anymore.  I think "Redskin" is very similar - an outdated term for Native Americans.   

because the name issue is minuscule compared to the  issues I listed and one second wasted on the name is entirely too much time. 

 

worrying about the name means you are not giving ALL the energy and resources  and more importantly - PUBLICITY - to the other. 

 

THAT'S WHY. 

 

I'm not convinced.   

 

If the name change is miniscule, then why do you care so much about keeping it?  

Now my real issue with the name change debate that is currently raging on is that the NA voice being heard does not represent the NA voice overall. Media has highjacked this issue, has waged a public opinion war against the name with no real attempt to get to the bottom of the issue. The name is automatically assumed to be universally derogatory because it has the word "skin" in it. References to skin color have historically been overwhelmingly derogatory, but it doesn't mean that it is in this case. To NA's, it might not be any more derogatory than Caucasian is to white people. We don't know, because nobody has bothered to ASK them. But that doesn't stop people from going on TV and decrying the name as 'awful, terrible,' etc despite having no real knowledge of it.

 

I agree, that is a problem.  

[Commander PK]

Now my real issue with the name change debate that is currently raging on is that the NA voice being heard does not represent the NA voice overall. Media has highjacked this issue, has waged a public opinion war against the name with no real attempt to get to the bottom of the issue. The name is automatically assumed to be universally derogatory because it has the word "skin" in it. References to skin color have historically been overwhelmingly derogatory, but it doesn't mean that it is in this case. To NA's, it might not be any more derogatory than Caucasian is to white people. We don't know, because nobody has bothered to ASK them. But that doesn't stop people from going on TV and decrying the name as 'awful, terrible,' etc despite having no real knowledge of it.

 

"that's a BINGO! ha ha...is that how you say it?     that's a Bingo?" 

 

 

"You just say Bingo"

[grhqofb5]

That does seem to be the attitude on here a lot of the time.  

 

 

How about the Wetbacks?  

 

The reason I ask is because youy are making a false equivalence.  The name of this team is not the "Aztecas" or the "Mayas" or the "Apaches" or the "Comanches" - it is the Redskins.   No one thinks the word "Aztec" is derogatory.  SOME people think the word "Redskin" is derogatory.   Therein lies the problem.  

 

So, looks like the argument has come full circle.  The term "redskins" is offensive to some people, and to some native americans.  What percentage needs to be offended to make change "the right thing to do?"

 

Is the term Aztecas offensive to some people, to some native americans in mexico?  I'd be willing to be that it is. How many need to be offended to make change "the right thing to do?"

 

To take one of the prime examples used by the "name change" group, you know a term is offensive if you call someone the term and they react negatively.  So, if I walked into a certain region in Mexico, went up to a native American, and said, "hello Aztec," I might be met with a negative response. Same thing if I walked up to a native American in south Dakota, and said "hello Redskin." Or if I walked up to a man in Norway, and said "hello, Viking."  Or if I walked up to a man in New York, or Massachusetts, and said "hello Yankee."  All situations are likely to elicit a negative response.  Of course, the example is absurd, because context matters a great deal.

 

The point is that there are people who are offended by the terms "Aztec," "Yankee," "Viking," "Redskins," "Indian," "Caucasian," "Steeler," etc. Is the percentage within the actual subject group important? YES. Is there a strict, bright line threshold that needs to be reached? NO.  Is 1% too low? YES.  Is 75% too high, YES.  What about 20%? If so, why not 15%? And if 15%, why not 10%, and so forth.  Maybe 1% is enough. Who gets to answer this question? Not me.   

[Larry]

The reason I ask is because youy are making a false equivalence.  The name of this team is not the "Aztecas" or the "Mayas" or the "Apaches" or the "Comanches" - it is the Redskins.   No one thinks the word "Aztec" is derogatory.  SOME people think the word "Redskin" is derogatory.   Therein lies the problem.

SOME people are offended by Halloween and Valentine's Day.

There are vastly more people demanding Obama's birth certificate than there are demanding the Redskins change their name. (Probably 100 times more.)

SOME people want a lot of things.

[TheGoodBits]

I agree, that is a problem.

That's also why so many on here are digging their heals in to defend the name. They don't feel there is much of a legitimate "keep the name" voice in this discussion, so the reaction is automatically to attack back with the same ferocity that the media is using. It's not the right approach, but I tend to give a pass in my mind to the passionate fans who feel, rightly, that this debate is unfair and one-sided.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

So, looks like the argument has come full circle.  The term "redskins" is offensive to some people, and to some native americans.  What percentage needs to be offended to make change "the right thing to do?"

 

Is the term Aztecas offensive to some people, to some native americans in mexico?  I'd be willing to be that it is. How many need to be offended to make change "the right thing to do?"

 

To take one of the prime examples used by the "name change" group, you know a term is offensive if you call someone the term and they react negatively.  So, if I walked into a certain region in Mexico, went up to a native American, and said, "hello Aztec," I might be met with a negative response. Same thing if I walked up to a native American in south Dakota, and said "hello Redskin." Or if I walked up to a man in Norway, and said "hello, Viking."  Or if I walked up to a man in New York, or Massachusetts, and said "hello Yankee."  All situations are likely to elicit a negative response.  Of course, the example is absurd, because context matters a great deal.

 

The point is that there are people who are offended by the terms "Aztec," "Yankee," "Viking," "Redskins," "Indian," "Caucasian," "Steeler," etc. Is the percentage within the actual subject group important? YES. Is there a strict, bright line threshold that needs to be reached? NO.  Is 1% too low? YES.  Is 75% too high, YES.  What about 20%? If so, why not 15%? And if 15%, why not 10%, and so forth.  Maybe 1% is enough. Who gets to answer this question? Not me.   

 

This has always been my stance. Obviously if a growing number (another vague quantifier) of people are offended, any rule or name or law should be under review. The issue is how do we define the tipping point?

 

The best way to figure out how to proceed is to actually be able to understand how many relevant people are offended. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what Peter King thinks. It doesn't matter what Dan Snyder thinks. It doesn't matter what UnWise Mike thinks. We need to understand what percentage of Native Americans want the Redskins to change their name.

[Hazel-Ra]

Taken from my Lifeinvader page where I'm having the same arguement

 

 I guess since we're gonna get hung up over team names that are culturally insensitive (allegedly), how about we make the Vikings change their name, because they were the first white explorers to discover that there was a western continent full of vulnerable people who hadn't bothered to invent the wheel or cavalry. They got the ball rolling. Or how about the Texans, Cowboys, Sooners, 49ers, Trailblazers... you know teams that are commemorative of all the Manifest Destiny/ White Western Migration policy that drove "Native" Americans on to reservations? Just sayin...

 

But IF a change MUST be made keep the name, ditch the logo and adopt a Demon/Devil

[Predicto]

That's also why so many on here are digging their heals in to defend the name. They don't feel there is much of a legitimate "keep the name" voice in this discussion, so the reaction is automatically to attack back with the same ferocity that the media is using. It's not the right approach, but I tend to give a pass in my mind to the passionate fans who feel, rightly, that this debate is unfair and one-sided.

 

I agree with you.  I'm a passionate fan too, and I understand that.

[Predicto]

This has always been my stance. Obviously if a growing number (another vague quantifier) of people are offended, any rule or name or law should be under review. The issue is how do we define the tipping point?

 

The best way to figure out how to proceed is to actually be able to understand how many relevant people are offended. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what Peter King thinks. It doesn't matter what Dan Snyder thinks. It doesn't matter what UnWise Mike thinks. We need to understand what percentage of Native Americans want the Redskins to change their name.

 

I agree, and I genuinely do not think that we know the answer to this.  The Anneberg survey was landlines only (which skews toward older people), let people "self identify" as Native American (half the white people I know claim to be 1/32 cherokee, especially in the South), and asked the question in an awkward fashion.   The results may or may not accurately reflect Native American sentiment, but I'm not comfortable with the methodology.

 

If Snyder really wants this to go away, he could commission a clean, well constructed survey of actual Native Americans and we would know a lot more.    

[grego]

I liked Kevin sheehans take on it that he just talked about- and he hadn't talked much about it.

He said he wants to here more from actual native Americans on the issue and not people like writers with an agenda. Basically said it stinks of being media driven, in so many words - much nicer words.

Nice to hear some sanity from the media for a change.

The results may or may not accurately reflect Native American sentiment, but I'm not comfortable with the methodology.

Yeah. Those annenberg pollsters don't know what the **** they're doing.

Dummies.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I agree, and I genuinely do not think that we know the answer to this.  The Anneberg survey was landlines only (which skews toward older people), let people "self identify" as Native American (half the white people I know claim to be 1/32 cherokee, especially in the South), and asked the question in an awkward fashion.   The results may or may not accurately reflect Native American sentiment, but I'm not comfortable with the methodology.

 

If Snyder really wants this to go away, he could commission a clean, well constructed survey of actual Native Americans and we would know a lot more.    

 

And as someone who doesn't want the name to change, even I can see that the point shouldn't be for this "to go away" right now. The point should be to make sure you are not offending a large number of people.

 

I agree with you 100% though. Commission a survey and react to the results. This won't ever truly go away though. If it comes back with 7% of Native Americans being offended, there's still an opportunity to spin that into something like "hundreds of people are offended and Snyder does NOTHING about it."

[Predicto]

And as someone who doesn't want the name to change, even I can see that the point shouldn't be for this "to go away" right now. The point should be to make sure you are not offending a large number of people.

 

I agree with you 100% though. Commission a survey and react to the results. This won't ever truly go away though. If it comes back with 7% of Native Americans being offended, there's still an opportunity to spin that into something like "hundreds of people are offended and Snyder does NOTHING about it."

 

True.  Not sure what to do about that, but I think that the controversy will die down in large part.

 

Just yelling "we will never ever ever ever ever ever change" and "**** the media" and "what about the Vikings!!!!" isn't working so well right now.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

True.  Not sure what to do about that, but I think that the controversy will die down in large part.

 

Just yelling "we will never ever ever ever ever ever change" and "**** the media" and "what about the Vikings!!!!" isn't working so well right now.

 

I agree.

 

For me as a fan, knowing that the percentage hasn't grown would help me reconcile with my feelings of not wanting it to change. If a more recent poll showed that 20% of NAs are offended now, I would probably advocate a change. I think it's less about an exact number and more about the trend. If it's truly doubled or there are that many relevant people hoping that we change it...it's time.

 

So, from a completely selfish point of view, the poll would be great for me. I'm sure it could put the Redskins into a tight spot though.

[Bang]

If Snyder really wants this to go away, he could commission a clean, well constructed survey of actual Native Americans and we would know a lot more.

If Snyder does it, they will ignore it. It's too common these days to destroy the messenger.

the only way it will die down that way is if the protesting side says "we'll prove it" and commissions the poll.. and of course publishes the result.

If it goes the way i'd suspect,, they'd be confronted with their lack of support.. and if it doesn't, then they get the support they need.

~Bang

[Predicto]

If Snyder does it, they will ignore it. It's too common these days to destroy the messenger.

the only way it will die down that way is if the protesting side says "we'll prove it" and commissions the poll.. and of course publishes the result.

If it goes the way i'd suspect,, they'd be confronted with their lack of support.. and if it doesn't, then they get the support they need.

~Bang

 

 

True.  Maybe Snyder could offer to pay for it and let the opponents conduct it.  That would be good public relations jujitsu.

[SJValleySkinz]

How many high school grads that live on reservations could get scholarships for college with all the money that would be needed for all these poll conductions and campaigns? It's not about preserving the heritage of a football team or how many people are offended by the name. It's about evil people that are exploiting the struggle Native Americans face so they can gather publicity and shove their snouts into another pile of cash. How could a name change hell those who are living in blinding poverty, kids that can't go to college and reservations battling meth and alcohol epidemics. I could absolutely care less about the rhetorical and semantical part of this. I would burn my jerseys if it meant the people that actually need help are getting it.

[RonArtest15]

A caller on 106.7 this morning brought up an excellent point regarding UnWise Mike.  Wise, by all accounts is spearheading the anti-Redskins name movement (to some extent).  However, as of last year, he was still appearing on Redskins Live (forgot the exact name of the TV show) as a guest.  Talk about contradicting yourself!  I guess the boycott of the name, to him, is fine...unless the Redskins put money in his bank account. 

 

*The only way the Skins change their name is if they lose sponsors.  However, as much of a cash cow the Skins are...I doubt we'll see that happen. 

[@DCGoldPants]

Feels like we're beyond polls now. The avalanche has started on this one. Question now is how fast it moves.