Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 So we're not really sure Lone Star Deitz is really Native American then a quote found where GPM himself says he didn't select the name in honor of his native american coach. This in addition to the twitter disaster... It doesn't feel like the Redskins are winning this PR battle. Here is the quote: Any chance that this quote is being misinterpreted or something? Olbermann put up the clipping of the whole small article on screen. I took a picture of it: And here's another article written around the same time: Notice the last sentence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Now on to something different: Why do so many people think the NA on the side of our helmet is disrespectful? FSF, some people view the employment of Native imagery (by non Natives) as unauthorized usage of something that doesn't belong to non Natives. Others see our Native images as trophies of Manifest Destiny, whether that's intended by the user or not, it's just how it's interpreted by some. A cartoon Native head, tomahawk, headdress, the hood ornament on an old Pontiac, they all fall under the same umbrella. Some Natives do not appreciate the 'one size fits all' approach we take with the usage of feathers in our imagery. Feathers can have many different meanings within the various Native nations. How and when the feathers are displayed by Natives can have a much deeper significance than what we see in sports imagery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 FSF, some people view the employment of Native imagery (by non Natives) as unauthorized usage of something that doesn't belong to non Natives. Others see our Native images as trophies of Manifest Destiny, whether that's intended by the user or not, it's just how it's interpreted by some. A cartoon Native head, tomahawk, headdress, the hood ornament on an old Pontiac, they all fall under the same umbrella. Some Natives do not appreciate the 'one size fits all' approach we take with the usage of feathers in our imagery. Feathers can have many different meanings within the various Native nations. How and when the feathers are displayed by Natives can have a much deeper significance than what we see in sports imagery. Since it was Native Americans themselves who campaigned for the Skins to use that imagery, I'd say it was/is as "authorized" as it could possibly be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Since it was Native Americans themselves who campaigned for the Skins to use that imagery, I'd say it was/is as "authorized" as it could possibly be. More facts ignored by the main stream media--this is what drives me crazy about this debate--it is completely slanted towards one-side, and pertinent, measurable, tangible facts are brushed aside for the populist and the emotional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 More facts ignored by the main stream media--this is what drives me crazy about this debate--it is completely slanted towards one-side, and pertinent, measurable, tangible facts are brushed aside for the populist and the emotional. Absolutely true. Marjo practically admitted to fabricating the "Redskin = Bloody scalps of Indians" story, one of THE cornerstones of the anti-Redskins movement, and nobody bats an eye. No big deal, apparently. Meanwhile, Snyder starts up a charitable foundation to aid Native Americans and is raked over the coals and ridiculed by the same people who didn't give a rat's ass if Marjo's Indian Scalps story was complete bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I love this article--it came out last year and not sure if it was posted--but it blows gaping holes in the Wise/Olbermann/Deadspin/PFT arguments...and points out every bit of their hypocrisy. http://thereadzone.com/2013/06/28/the-washington-redskins-name-change-controversy-is-redskins-actually-offensive/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 And here's another article written around the same time: Notice the last sentence... Which did he say first and did he have those Native American employees dress up and dance? I ask because it reads like a really bad marketing gimmick. The Redskins, now with real live Indians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 I think we fans need to do some boycotting of our own. It's absurd that the local media has been taking the lead on this and ignoring one side completely. They'll keep doing it so long as they have a voice. Only way to take that voice away is to hit their employers in the pocketbooks. Even if the name changes, the hate from the locals with Danny grudges won't stop. If anything it will reinforce a punchline for them. They love to harp on the past bad teams, this will just be another thing that they harp on even after they've "won" (and then ignored NAs and not actually helped them in any tangible way). Boycott The Post, 106.7, UnWise Mike, Reid, Deadspin, PFT, etc. etc. Any one of these guys that is affected by local fan support and dishonestly portrays this as one-sided. You all do realize that by taking the stance they do, they are essentially saying the Redskins are racists and by extension so are the fans, right? It's a logical inference, because the stance they take is that the name is a slur, has no other meaning but a slur, and that all Native Americans are offended. So by their stance, anyone who disagrees supports racism. They go on and on with this dishonest agenda, never talking about any real issues NAs face either, and they'll never help those people out, unlike the team which actually is helping now. They are on the offensive, barraging the news cycle with their repetitive, one-sided drivel. The majority of people do not support their views, so it's time we let them know that is the case. They want to silence our side, it's time we took moves to silence theirs. So boycott these fools and let their employers know this is why. If they affect the NFL's pocketbooks, we lose. The name is changed and the team has a new legacy of racism. Marshall's legacy is primarily known as being a racist despite good contributions to the game. That's exactly what happens with the team. Everything else is ignored, and the team is given a legacy of racism, fair or not. So we have to hit their pocketbooks first and that only happens with boycotts and letters/e-mails to the media outlets. We have to show we actually care about the name by taking action. I cancelled my subscription to the Post and let them know this is exactly why. 106.7 all you have to do is simply not listen or ever tune to it. The websites, just refuse to click on links. Refuse to link any of their stuff in here. Cut their traffic way down. If somebody posts a link to one of thsoe sites, then post back that you won't click on the link because of this stuff and that they shouldn't post such links. We need to take a page out of the other side's book and be vocal about this and take action that has real effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Not that I care about defending the team name anymore, but fans, especially around here, seem to be too stupid to know how much they feed the animosity/bitterness that blankets this entire city. I see/hear most criticism directed at the team(s) more than the hack journalists who deserve a lot as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Absolutely true. Marjo practically admitted to fabricating the "Redskin = Bloody scalps of Indians" story, one of THE cornerstones of the anti-Redskins movement, and nobody bats an eye. No big deal, apparently. Meanwhile, Snyder starts up a charitable foundation to aid Native Americans and is raked over the coals and ridiculed by the same people who didn't give a rat's ass if Marjo's Indian Scalps story was complete bull****. And that's what makes this such a difficult battle to win, especially given how poor our FO has handled this. The emotional arguments burn out after a while--unless there is some new item to piss them off. Honestly, PFT, Deadspin, etc. have done a great job fanning those flames, keeping the argument in the headlines, coming up with new rhetoric, and twisting anything that comes up positive for the name debate. However, our FO has given them ample material. The letter from Allen was great. It should stop there for a while. The opponents will eventually burn out. I wonder how many people outside this area view the debate. I wonder if they are getting sick of hearing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 And that's what makes this such a difficult battle to win, especially given how poor our FO has handled this. The emotional arguments burn out after a while--unless there is some new item to piss them off. Honestly, PFT, Deadspin, etc. have done a great job fanning those flames, keeping the argument in the headlines, coming up with new rhetoric, and twisting anything that comes up positive for the name debate. However, our FO has given them ample material. The letter from Allen was great. It should stop there for a while. The opponents will eventually burn out. I wonder how many people outside this area view the debate. I wonder if they are getting sick of hearing about it. It's not even talked about among fans in any of the several football-related sites I visit daily, and they talk about everything. Issue was brought up once before, and while some said it should change most fell right in line with polling data in that they didn't think it should be changed. I haven't seen it discussed on a non-Redskins/local site since last season. Other team forums aren't talking about it. I have a lot of college friends that are liberal, they don't talk about it, etc. The problem is that media has the largest audience, hence why we need to start boycotting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Which did he say first and did he have those Native American employees dress up and dance? I ask because it reads like a really bad marketing gimmick. The Redskins, now with real live Indians! I got the impression that he did a bunch of interviews around the same time... As for marketing, it was most definitely part of it. Every team name is made in part due to marketing. And, yeah, by 2014 standards it's definitely a bad marketing gimmick lol...by 1933 standards, though, it was most likely par for the course. Ever see any of those magazine ads from the 50s, where women look like sex slaves in submission to their virile husbands, and all they want to do is cook and clean to his satisfaction? Completely embarassing now, rather normal back then. In fact, you guys may love this lol...I believe it's a different article than the other two: As for the rest, I'll quote from the article where I found that image: "But was the specific link to the players and coach of the team simply latter-day revisionism? Was it a story cooked up to garner credibility and deflect criticism once people started to question the nickname at some point a few decades ago? [...]Now, whatever else one might think of that quote when read with the perspective of someone living in 2014, it seems fairly clear that Marshall himself was tying one of the reasons for the name change directly to his coach, players, and Native Americans generally....What is undeniable is that Marshall was connecting the name change to Dietz and Native American players before the newly-christened “Redskins” ever took the field." I think the point being, anyone who feels that earlier article negates the idea that the name Redskins had anything to do with Dietz and the NA players on the team at the time would be wrong. And actually, the writer takes the stance that I do, that the whole "Honoring Dietz" argument is like #11 on the Top 10 Reasons to keep the name Redskins. Here's the link if you wanna read the whole thing: http://theaxisofego.com/2014/05/30/case-closed/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 By the way, the whole "real Indians" comment reminded me of this Chappelle skit lol (a few uses of profanity, so nsfw applies): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Which did he say first and did he have those Native American employees dress up and dance? I ask because it reads like a really bad marketing gimmick. The Redskins, now with real live Indians! The Native American players were signed while the team was still the Braves, if that makes any difference, and it doesn't say real " live " Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 The Native American players were signed while the team was still the Braves. If that makes any difference. It might have if not for the the fact that he had them wearing "war bonnets, blankets, and everything." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 It might have if not for the the fact that he had them wearing "war bonnets, blankets, and everything." Kinda like Buffalo Bills.. i mean Buffalo Bill's world famous minstrel show.. i mean Wild West Show. Boy that apostrophe makes all the difference between a genocide-enabling exploiter of Native Americans and a pro football team. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 New survey of Native Americans is out: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur Obviously it's tough to determine how scientific this is compared to the Annenberg poll but this one seems to have been controlled more strictly. Edit- reading more closely this survey sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniffler Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 400 individuals out of 5.2 million identified tribal members were surveyed?... I'm not a statistician but 67% of 400 does not seem like a convincing majority to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 400 individuals out of 5.2 million identified tribal members were surveyed?... I'm not a statistician but 67% of 400 does not seem like a convincing majority to me. I don't completely disagree but the other survey we hung our hats on was only 700 people and there was no effort made to determine whether or not they were Native Americans. Considering this is telling us the exact opposite, I'd say that's pretty telling. To completely dismiss this survey is essentially sticking your head in the sand and pretending this is not significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 The first question is "Redskins is racial or racist". Most would agree it refers to a race.Demographics are out of whack, something about questions being asked at a pow wows? Not really a random sample. Sample size half of the much maligned Annenberg poll. Poll designer appear biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniffler Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Good point. I'm not completely dismissing it... Just making an observation. After thinking about it though... Maybe if I stick my head in the sand this will all go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Actually disregard what I said. I read the survey result a little more closely. It said that most of the survey responses were "gathered at local pow-wows." This to me indicates that they only sampled individual groups of Native Americans rather than the population as a whole. Remember that you're not dealing with one population of people, you're dealing with hundreds of different cultural backgrounds and experiences. So one group/tribe might have 95% of its members of the opinion that Redskins is the most despicable word in the English language, and another group might have 95% completely fine with its use. The first question is "Redskins is racial or racist". Most would agree it refers to a race. Demographics are out of whack, something about questions being asked at a pow wows? Not really a random sample. Sample size half of the much maligned Annenberg poll. Poll designer appear biased. Yep just added another post after reading closer. Should have read the survey itself instead of the summary of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Is asking at pow-wows more or less problematic than self identification? Personally I'm entirely in favor of only polling native americans on reservations because self-identification is a meaningless thing for a variety of reasons IMO. I also note that this survey must be meticulously examined where as the predominant defense of the previous poll was something along the lines of "if you don't like it, then come up with a more recent poll that says different!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 skins, you reject the "highly respected public policy center" annenberg poll, ("only" 700 self identified native americans), but you accept a poll of 98 native americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 skins, you reject the "highly respected public policy center" annenberg poll, ("only" 700 self identified native americans), but you accept a poll of 98 native americans? Didn't say that. And read a couple more posts down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.