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

[grego]

RFK- susan harjos entire belief about the name - her entire reason for being offended- is a lie. even native americans know this and have said so (see the article above i posted).

 

heres what harjo has said about the name- 

“‘Redskins’ is the most derogatory name our people can be called” – tantamount to calling an African American a n*****, a Latino a s*** or a Caucasian a honkie – says Suzan Harjo, who heads the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization. Most people believe that the term “Redskins” relates to the color of Native Americans’ skin, which is derogatory enough, but the moniker has a far more nefarious connotation Harjo says.

She points to government-sanctioned bounties that White men put on Indians that could be collected by producing the dead bodies of her ancestors. As it became increasingly difficult to store and transport heaps of putrid, rotting corpses, colonial governors, and subsequently U.S. officials, agreed to pay for Indians’ scalps and skins, which were crammed into sacks. Colonists often scalped Indians and stripped the corpses of skin, says Dartmouth College historian Colin Calloway.

 

Says Harjo: “How can we be honored by the name of the Washington football team, a name that reminds us of the heinous and horrible things that have been done to us? Why must we constantly be reminded of the terrible things in our past? If you want to help us, help us address the problems of diabetes; help us with problems of poor housing. We’re at the bottom of the ladder in so many different categories. We need help, but we don’t need a name that hurts us.”

[RFKFedEx]

If Harjo is lying, why isn't anybody calling her out? (aside from our fanbase) 

 

The bloody scalp theory holds as much cred as the body paint IMO. Both likely contributed to the coining of the term Redskins. Proving one as a fact and the other a myth will never be possible. I don't believe GPM had bloody scalps in mind when he choose the name.

[grego]

If Harjo is lying, why isn't anybody calling her out? (aside from our fanbase) 

 

The bloody scalp theory holds as much cred as the body paint IMO. Both likely contributed to the coining of the term Redskins. Proving one as a fact and the other a myth will never be possible. I don't believe GPM had bloody scalps in mind when he choose the name.

 

i referenced the article i posted earlier about the origin of the name. if you want to take issue with his research, have at it.

 

 

Robert Hale Ives Goddard, III (1941- ) is curator emeritus in the Department of Anthropology of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution. He is widely considered the leading expert on the Algonquian languages and the larger Algic language family.

Ives Goddard received his B.A. from Harvard College in 1963 and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1969. From 1966-1969 he was a Junior Fellow of the Harvard Society of Fellows.

 

from the first page of the article-

 

One need not accept Harjo’s

unfounded claim that the word redskin

“had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps

as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments”2

to accept that many find the

word objectionable in current use. But

the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive

aspects of relations between Indians

and whites. It emerged at a specific

time in history among a small group of

men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth.

Before its documented history can be

traced, however, the false history

given for it in standard reference

books must be expunged.

 

 

 

bang did a good job of explaining why people dont speak out against this cause. no use in repeating it. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

The Redskins could do a lot to erase this issue by actually speaking out about it publicly and defending the name and educating people/organizations on why it isn't offensive instead of just defiantly ignoring it or dropping one or two cliche "tradition" "respect" lines as they are walking away from an interview or something. 

 

I really wish they would just let it have its day at Redskins park and use it to actually explain the reasons why it's not racist and punch out the obvious holes in the opposition's viewpoint. To me, they come across as arrogant and defiant even though I know it isn't their intentio but it only inspires more hate and campaigning against us.  

[Larry]

But man are they ever getting louder

If, by "they're getting louder", you mean "I keep announcing the same untrue claim, ignoring the fact that its untrue", then you are correct.

It's a tried and true political tactic.

Make untrue claim. People point out that its untrue. Pretend that you haven't heard them.

Make same untrue claim. Again, ignore the people pointing out that its untrue.

Make same untrue claim. When people again point out that its untrue, marvel at how touchy the other people are, and speculate that the fact that they keep pointing out that your claim is untrue, must mean that they are desperate.

After keeping this up for a while, claim that the fact that the same people have been making the same untrue claims, for a long time, represents a growing tidal wave of their righteousness.

[Hazel-Ra]

Crab R said:

 

"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."

 

 

Now we're two... who's next?  In a perfect world we'd never have to consider it... but the Coalition of the Shrill Voice Affronted are pretty much undefeated in these matters.

 

As a non DC native, I just can't be sure it could be the same for me if they were called anything else, and positively couldn't if it were a complete an utter re-branding. If I lived in DC I could back whatever because it's the hometown team, but I don't have that luxury.

 

Better the "Devil We Know" and at least keep the name!

[MattFancy]

The Redskins could do a lot to erase this issue by actually speaking out about it publicly and defending the name and educating people/organizations on why it isn't offensive instead of just defiantly ignoring it or dropping one or two cliche "tradition" "respect" lines as they are walking away from an interview or something. 

 

I really wish they would just let it have its day at Redskins park and use it to actually explain the reasons why it's not racist and punch out the obvious holes in the opposition's viewpoint. To me, they come across as arrogant and defiant even though I know it isn't their intentio but it only inspires more hate and campaigning against us.  

 

The organization could definitely do a better job of addressing the situation. I put that on the PR team though. Although, Snyder didn't help the cause when he said it would NEVER be changed. But I agree, the team could certainly do more to help educate and help the Native Americans.

[pjfootballer]

Why do the supporters for the name to be changed, keep citing the dictionary like its a legal, binding document that is the final say?  Dictionaries, like the bible, were written by man.  Both are flawed and dictionary meanings change from year to year.

[cphil006]

Awesome article below of support for our name from retired Chief:

 

Retired Native American Chief Would Be Offended If Redskins DID Change Name

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/

 

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) - Days ago, ten members of Congress sent letters to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, and the team’s stadium naming rights holder FedEx, along with the league’s 31 other franchises, urging them to have ‘Redskins’ changed due to the name’s offensive nature.

 

In response, the longtime chief of a major Virginia-based tribe went on the record to say he’d actually be offended if the team DID change the name.

 

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.

 

He gave a detailed account of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.

 

“I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not, and frankly, the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”

 

Earlier this month, Snyder told the USA Today “We’ll never change the name,” but instead of bringing finality to the debate, his words seemed to spark controversy on a national level, bringing activists from both sides out of the woodwork to fan the flames.

 

Chief Green’s research indicates the common misconception is to think the term was originally used as a racial epithet to denigrate Native people; that the label was actually self-applied, and was used quite frequently during interactions with early settlers.

 

Here’s a blow-by-blow of the interview, in which each nuance of the great debate is addressed.

 

Why are people offended by it?

 

“Well I think that, first of all, our country has become too politically correct. And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise, the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.”

 

Origin of the Name

 

“And I think what you have to do is look at where the term Redskin was originated. There’s some that give the term Redskins a negative connotation to indicate that it was created by the white man, to offend the Indians. But in reality, the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves often times, in treaty negotiations and meetings with the early settlers, as Redskins.

 

“So it’s not a term that the white man created. It’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

 

“Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far – to 1608 – when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people, and he remarked in his diary that when they’re born, they’re as white as we are. It’s only as they age that their skin darkens.

 

“And we believe that that was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Puccoon plant. And coincidentally, the Puccoon dye, when it’s crushed and dyed, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turns red. So, was that a comment meant to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so. I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive.”

 

The Logo

 

“And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full warhead headdress and things. It was never intended to be offensive. I think that sometimes, we’re a little too touchy in our society these days.”

[Destino]

Why do the supporters for the name to be changed, keep citing the dictionary like its a legal, binding document that is the final say?  Dictionaries, like the bible, were written by man.  Both are flawed and dictionary meanings change from year to year.

 

Did you just take a random swipe at the bible?  I've heard of people treating football like religion but I didn't realize it had advanced to the point where it's adherents were taking shots at competing religions.  

[Burgold]

For the short term, I sure wouldn't mind a name change...

 

Something like Superbowl winning National Champion Washington Redskins

 

Sure, it's a longer name, but I could dig adding a couple prefixes to it.

[GhostofSparta]

Does the fact that white people seem to be more offended by the name than Native Americans reek of "White Man's Burden" to anybody else?

[Burgold]

Does the fact that white people seem to be more offended by the name than Native Americans reek of "White Man's Burden" to anybody else?

One Native American I spoke to told me that "white" Native Americans have much more issue to it than "brown" Native Americans for that reason.  The "brown" NA's have much more significant problems to contend with, but the "white" ones tend to want to prove their nativeness.

 

I don't know if that's actually true, but I thought it was interesting.

[Larry]

Why do the supporters for the name to be changed, keep citing the dictionary like its a legal, binding document that is the final say? Dictionaries, like the bible, were written by man. Both are flawed and dictionary meanings change from year to year.

IMO, a much better point is that dictionaries, by definition, (there's a kind of a pun, there), don't list proper nouns.

In short, what the dictionary says is "when the word 'redskin' is used, AND THE PERSON IS NOT REFERRING TO A FOOTBALL TEAM, OR A POTATO, then what he most likely is trying to say is ....."

I don't know, but to me, I would suspect that, if a dictionary were to write a definition for the word "Oreo", it would say that he term is offensive, because, IF YOU IGNORE ALL OF THE TIMES THAT THE WORD REFERS TO A COOKIE, then that's the most common usage. (Even though the cookie had that name, before it became offensive).

[Larry]

For the short term, I sure wouldn't mind a name change...

Something like Superbowl winning National Champion Washington Redskins

Sure, it's a longer name, but I could dig adding a couple prefixes to it.

I have proposed, for the next year, the media should refer to the team as "NFCE Champions".

Just to be PC, and all.

[pjfootballer]

Did you just take a random swipe at the bible?  I've heard of people treating football like religion but I didn't realize it had advanced to the point where it's adherents were taking shots at competing religions.  

Yeah sort of. The bible is a guide, but a lot of people take it too literally.  Take for instance Noah.  How in the hell with all the micro organisms, bugs and such, could he have really kept 2 of everything.  My point was for people not to take things so literally and that the dictionary is not the final judge of definitions.

[GhostofSparta]

Take for instance Noah.  How in the hell with all the micro organisms, bugs and such, could he have really kept 2 of everything. 

[Bang]

I'm still having trouble quoting mutiple posters in one reply, sry for the double posts.

'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.

But man are they ever getting louder

What facts have I ignored? Walter Wetzel, Lone Star Deitz, Chief Zee? 

Why would I be ban eligible? I think you're ignorant of the growing PR problem this franchise faces. 

They are not getting louder. They're still the same extreme minority they always were.

They've been doing this for 20 years. but nowadays, every fringe gets its voice, and what's screaming loudest = what's right ever more increasingly.

You've ignored all the facts. If you paid attention to the facts, your arguments would cease. You would recognize which side of this argument is truly based in reality, and which is based  in the feelings of a very small number of people, who have been repeatedly shown to not represent anyone but their own small group./ they claim to speak for natives, but when the natives speak, they overwhelmingly disagree with this very tiny sect of people who believe that if ONE person is offended, than that is enough. (Again, not my words,, the words of the plaintiff in the trademark case, on the courthouse steps, in front of press. ONE person dictates to everyone. This is their view. This is what you support.)

You see a growing PR problem. I see ignorance out of control. 

i see people who would prefer to ignore facts to live in a reality they've created for themselves, and not only will they prefer to live in it, they expect everyone else to change to conform to their ridiculously false point of view.

So you bend to the idiots. For the sake of PR, you ignore truth and go with the small loud flow. Go be roused. Rabble rabble. 

 

 

~Bang

[burgundyrush]

There's a whole thread full of facts to read.

try it.

 

~Bang

  

How do you sugarcoat the foot you just shoved into your mouth? Talking about ignorance....

  

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?

This is from the Ives Goddard article...

The word redskin reflects a genuine Native American idiom that was used in several languages, where it grew out of an earlier established and more widespread use of “red” and “white” as racial labels. This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label categories of the new ethnic and political reality they confronted with the coming of the Europeans.

When Black Thunder wanted to refer inclusively to all the assembled tribes and to both the Americans and the French, he said “red skins and white skins.”

So as we can see way back in the day the word redskin was never meant to be a derogatory word. It had a self-explanatory meaning once the Europeans arrived and it seem like the Native Americans called themselves red skins to differentiate themselves from the new pale-skinned Europeans. Now its the 21st century and I highly doubt Native Americans would like to be referred to as "red skins" and Caucasians would not like to be called "white skins" I don't think the term redskin is up there with the n-word, but I'll put it in the same category of calling African Americans "colored people" hence the word red skin being a offensive word in 2013.

[Bang]

You might highly doubt it, but it's what they say when they're asked.

 

Does that count for anything?

 

~Bang

[elkabong82]

    

So as we can see way back in the day the word redskin was never meant to be a derogatory word. It had a self-explanatory meaning once the Europeans arrived and it seem like the Native Americans called themselves red skins to differentiate themselves from the new pale-skinned Europeans. Now its the 21st century and I highly doubt Native Americans would like to be referred to as "red skins" and Caucasians would not like to be called "white skins" I don't think the term redskin is up there with the n-word, but I'll put it in the same category of calling African Americans "colored people" hence the word red skin being a offensive word in 2013.

 

The polls show that 90% of Native Americans don't take issue with the name. So who is right, them, or you?

 

You wouldn't call a Native American a Redskin, just as you wouldn't call them a Brave or a Chief, just as you wouldn't call a Scandinavian a Viking, or a Bostonian a Celtic unless they were a player for the team. Braves on a warpath, and all the battle/war connections in football and other sports shows that team names connect to a warrior class, not a group of people as they exist today.

 

It doesn't matter what category you place redskins in, what matters is the opinion of the group that is claimed to be taking offense. In this case, Native Americans by and large, 90%, are not offended by the name. So your placement of the term in offensive ranking is wrong.

[Larry]

Yeah, seems to me that, if the question is "is this offensive?", then by far the most authoritative way to answer that question, is to ASK PEOPLE if they're offended.

That's been done. And the verdict was OVERWHELMINGLY "no".

Don't like that result? TAKE ANOTHER POLL.

But, when I'm weighing evidence, and one side of he scale has a poll, and the other side has somebody's bombastic opinion, guess which one I pay attention to?

[burgundyrush]

The poll numbers is great and all, but I agree with Larry about taking another poll. Asking if the word is offensive is different from asking would you like to be called a red skin exclusively like your ancestors.

[Bang]

Except no one calls anyone a "redskin".

 

doesn't a slur at least have to be used to be considered a slur?

 

If no one says it, why is it considered?

 

~Bang

[big#44]

Except no one calls anyone a "redskin".

 

doesn't a slur at least have to be used to be considered a slur?

 

If no one says it, why is it considered?

 

~Bang

 

Bingo. I'd venture that many of the plaintiffs in this suit have never had someone call them a Redskin to their face.