grego Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Holmes norton claimed the "great majority of native Americans" find the name derogatory. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Discussing this in another forum and someone went so far as to say this: "Whether or not most American Indians are fine with it or offended by it isn't really relevant either." That is why I referenced Bang's post earlier and showed the Daniel Tosh clip. It's why so many seem to ignore all evidence showing Native Americans mostly are not offended. A lot of people these days are just looking to be offended and shout out loud, actual facts and reason be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 It's become a "me too! I also don't like it". It's hilarious. Actually, it's becoming a "agree with us, or you're a racist". Or a "I didn't get a harrumph out of that guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Holmes norton claimed the "great majority of native Americans" find the name derogatory. Prove it. She represents a city that still votes for marion barry to represent on the council. and i'm supposed to take them seriously? I may as well talk to my dog. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundyrush Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It's a offensive, racist name man. When your children decides to search for the meaning of their favorite football team how are you going to sugarcoat "derogatory name for Native Americans"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It's a offensive, racist name man. When your children decides to search for the meaning of their favorite football team how are you going to sugarcoat "derogatory name for Native Americans"? There's a whole thread full of facts to read. try it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It's a offensive, racist name man. When your children decides to search for the meaning of their favorite football team how are you going to sugarcoat "derogatory name for Native Americans"? unbelievable. some person who has actually taken the time to register and post on this site is this ignorant of the facts of the name. this speaks to two things- one, people (journalists, politicians, message board posters) would rather shoot their mouths off rather than listen (or read) and learn. two, if someone who posts here is this out of touch regarding this issue, how out of touch is the rest of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It's a offensive, racist name man. When your children decides to search for the meaning of their favorite football team how are you going to sugarcoat "derogatory name for Native Americans"? How do you sugarcoat the foot you just shoved into your mouth? Talking about ignorance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 How does one sugar coat the fact that Native leaders, journalists, politicians, and educators have been suggesting that we change for years? Should a parent tell their kid that those people are 'wrong' and 'we're right'; despite the ever increasing opposition we face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 How does one sugar coat the fact the Native leaders, journalists, politicians, and educators have been suggesting that we change for years? Should a parent tell their kid that those people are 'wrong' and 'we're right'; despite the ever increasing opposition we face? And how do we say that we're wrong when there are Native leaders, politicians, journalists, and educators saying we're right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 And how do we say that we're wrong when there are Native leaders, politicians, journalists, and educators saying we're right? Where are those people found (aside from team affiliated media outlets)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Where are those people found (aside from team affiliated media outlets)? rfk- seriously? youve been talking about this topic forever. you discount the annenberg poll? you discount walter wetzels designing the logo? you discount native american schools that adopt the name as their mascot? how is it not obvious that its a few who claim to be offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Where are those people found (aside from team affiliated media outlets)? Retired Patawomeck Chief Says He'd Be Offended if Redskins Changed Name: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/05/29/retired-patawomeck-chief-says-hed-be-offended-if-redskins-change-name/ Three Virginia Tribes Not Offended by Redskins: http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/c/34656/f/636561/s/2bf69d11/l/0L0Swashingtonpost0N0Cblogs0Cdc0Esports0Ebog0Cwp0C20A130C0A50C150Cthree0Evirginia0Eindian0Etribes0Enot0Eoffended0Eby0Eredskins0C/story01.htm AP Poll Finds Supports for Redskins Name: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/05/03/ap-poll-finds-support-for-redskins-name-redskins-com-rejoices/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Where are those people found (aside from team affiliated media outlets)? Haven't read the thread, have you? Here's a simple one: Over 90% of Native Americans say that the name is not offensive. And no one has even ATTEMPTED to show otherwise, through the one, the only, simple and relatively inexpensive way of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 face facts they are going to make us at least get rid of the name if associated with Indians Why we will lose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29 this article says a poll of Native Americans did not find it offensive, yet the article states "Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas this is a prime reason why i do not use Wikipedia, as a few editors chose on what it says I say we keep the name and get a new symbol instead of the chief. I like the Devil idea. All we would have to do is change the symbol and the fight song lyrics. As i said before Snyder should have had several college scholarship set aside each year for native Americans only. Last I knew some of the poorest places in the US were Reservations. We should start a Redskins charity and give to the needy native Americans. Set up collections at games and I bet the fans would do their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I have yet to hear one Native American come out and say they find the name offensive. Why is it always middle aged white men, Washington Post columnists, or Democrats campaign for the change? I've actually been to Indian reservations out west and believe me a sports teams' name is far from their list of problems. Poverty, alcoholism, and hunger are rampant. If UnWise Mike, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, and the Democrats really want to make a difference then why don't they volunteer their time and offer to help at a reservation, or better yet donate some money or food. Trustme, it would benefit the Native Americans much more than a phony name change crusade. Funny how this was a non-factor during the dark days of the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I cant edit my post so let as this.... I once read Marshall chose the name Redskins because of the Boston Tea Party and the fact they smeared their faces with red ochre to look like Mohawks, the name REDSKINS So just make our mascot look like a boston Tea Party member then it is historical and not offensive to the overly sensitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I have yet to hear one Native American come out and say they find the name offensive. Why is it always middle aged white men, Washington Post columnists, or Democrats campaign for the change? I've actually been to Indian reservations out west and believe me a sports teams' name is far from their list of problems. Poverty, alcoholism, and hunger are rampant. If UnWise Mike, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, and the Democrats really want to make a difference then why don't they volunteer their time and offer to help at a reservation, or better yet donate some money or food. Trust me, it would benefit the Native Americans much more than a phony name change crusade. Funny how this was a non-factor during the dark days of the franchise. Agree with everything you said. Changing the name of this team isn't going to do anything for the Native Americans. People always talk a big game about stuff like this, but you never see any action. If they were so concerned about them, then going out and actually doing things that will help in the Native American community. Someone brought this up earlier and it's a good idea, I think Snyder should set up a charity for Native Americans where a percentage of merchandise sales go to them. Even something small would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 How does one sugar coat the fact that Native leaders, journalists, politicians, and educators have been suggesting that we change for years? Should a parent tell their kid that those people are 'wrong' and 'we're right'; despite the ever increasing opposition we face? Why do you continue to stand on these people as if they are even anywhere close to any majority opinion at all, even among their 'own people'? This is a small little tiny group who believe that if ONE person is offended than that is more than enough reason to make the rest of the world bend to their incorrect viewpoint. (they said that, not me. ONE person.) seriously,, i used to give you some credibility, but it's gone. You've been shown actual real facts over and over as to why you're wrong, and yet here you are 240 posts and umpteen pages into this, across multiple threads, still ignoring every fact that has been bounced off your dome. Willful ignorance offends me. But do you see me asking anyone to ban you? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I cant edit my post so let as this.... I once read Marshall chose the name Redskins because of the Boston Tea Party and the fact they smeared their faces with red ochre to look like Mohawks, the name REDSKINS So just make our mascot look like a boston Tea Party member then it is historical and not offensive to the overly sensitive That is incorrect. Redskins started out as the Braves due to the Boston baseball team. Naming your football team after the local pro baseball team was a common tactic to feed off baseball's success back then. The team moved to Fenway and needed to change the name to distance themselves from the Braves baseball team. Marshall hired Lone Star Dietz, a Native American, and wanted to keep the theme for the team to honor him (per newspaper reports and Marshall's own granddaughter's words). Redskins just so happened to be a known term for Native Americans that was close to the Redsox name, Dietz approved, and hence we have the name. Some Native Americans petitioned us in the 70s to have the face on the helmet again, so I disagree with changing that. Plus, we are honoring a name once created by Native Americans and originally used in esteem. Changing it to honor a part of our history where we sought to frame Native Americans may not be the best idea. Really 80% of the country does not favor a name change and 90% of Native Americans do not find the term offensive, so there's no need for a name change IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Why is it always middle aged white men, Washington Post columnists, or Democrats campaign for the change? Do you mean people like this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 thought i'd add a link to an article i found while reading troy fakemans post earlier about the origins of the name (that article can be found here- http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf). interesting stuff here. the author is a native american who takes issue with susan harjos claim that the name relates to the scalping native americans. although i do take issue with his statement about the redskins 'caricature' (first, its not a caricature, second, it was proposed, designed approved by a prominent native american) and using that phrase in the same sentence as the cleveland indians, it represents another native american viewpoint. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172 Redskins Not So Black and White while I read the lines of debate in blogs or Facebook posts or comment sections, I can’t help but notice one glaring statement that’s always inserted into the debates: “redskins” equals “scalp.” This conclusion originates from American Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne and Muscogee) and a National Congress of American Indians’ brief............As appalling and emotionally appealing as it is, the Phips Proclamation doesn’t include the words “red skins” in it. Claiming “scalps” automatically means “red skins” is revisionist history, to be blunt. It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I'm still having trouble quoting mutiple posters in one reply, sry for the double posts. Why do you continue to stand on these people 'Those people' have an issue with something we all love, that is our football franchise. The S storm isn't going to stop until we change. This is a small little tiny group But man are they ever getting louder You've been shown actual real facts over and over as to why you're wrong, and yet here you are 240 posts and umpteen pages into this, across multiple threads, still ignoring every fact that has been bounced off your dome. What facts have I ignored? Walter Wetzel, Lone Star Deitz, Chief Zee? Willful ignorance offends me. But do you see me asking anyone to ban you? Why would I be ban eligible? I think you're ignorant of the growing PR problem this franchise faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Where are those people found (aside from team affiliated media outlets)? Are you suggesting that Native Americans who are proud of the name and not offended, aren't genuine? If so, how do you explain the Native American Chief who helped create the current logo? Obviously, he must've had a gun put to his head.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Do you mean people like this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cole 90% of Native Americans do not find offense, 80% of the country is opposed to a name change. So who is right? The majority and the people who this is all about, or the vocal minority that is as loud as it is small? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.