Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---All Things Related to Changing the Team's Name Go Here

Recommended Posts

I'm just trying to tell you that it is a lot easier to do this effective on the Washington Redskins message board than it is in the real world.  The people out there who are not Redskins fans are not going to ignore what the dictionaries tell them in favor of a historical discussion of red war paint vs. scalping vs. skin color.  Nor are they going to find it compelling to be told that the word redskin has no meaning other than the name of a football team.   

And this is why I believe that the name will probably change. The media got to them. And now nobody doesn't want to hear facts anymore. All they see is the word "skin" preceded by a color, and now they believe it to be offensive. End of story.

 

And that's not fair at all...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------

Speaking well of enemies you've defeated being considered gracious and all.

 

Let's make that argument.

 

"We named our team Redskins because you were so noble and upright in the face of genocide. We really admired that."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. I am honeslty not that familiar with Harjo. I thought the person we were supposed to hate is the Casino dude from Connecticut.

LOL. Casino dude is basically Harjo 2.0, and utilizes much of the same BS arguments put forth by Harjo from years ago.

 

2. Who is being called a white supremacist? (Aside from George P. Marshall who was, in a fact, a white supremacist).

 

No one. This was an example Predicto used in relation to the notion of "attacking the source". I was pointing out how his example wasn't really accurate to the situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grego, I believe you. No issues.

I will repeat, my view is based on my experiences. Not the media. Not the people making the commercials or anything else. I think times are different today and the name is inappropriate because I don't think any team would be named after the color of people's skin.

I'm losing any sleep over the issue. I'm not NA. I'm not offended. But I can understand why they would be. I'm not going to research why they shouldn't be offended.

It's that simple for me. The other stuff is just sleight of hand.

Let's make that argument.

"We named our team Redskins because you were so noble and upright in the face of genocide. We really admired that."

That's kind of powerful. I never for once thought of that and I'm not quoting this to add to the argument, just to say with that in mind, why were any sports teams named using NA themes? Even though we did what we did to you, we really respected you...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually believe that is your goal - to solve this great mystery that no one else really cares about. But that is just going to cause you to go deep down a rabbit hole that really has no end. No word is really offensive in and of itself. I'm not even sure intent or context ultimately matters here. (I'm guessing there are many a white guy with many black friends who decided one day to give the N-word a shot and found themselves on the receiving end of a lot of blank stares. Intent or context simply does not matter with that word).

Sometimes, it is intent. Sometimes, it is context. Sometimes, it is the person saying it. Sometimes, it is just the word itself.

The problem with Redskins - ultimately - may be that it is just a bridge too far in terms of cultural appropriation. Like, "You couldn't have just stuck with "Braves" and left well enough alone?"

To me, it's pretty simple.

If people feel offended, then it's offensive. If they don't, then it isn't.

Although I assume it's possible to get philosophical, and debate the question of "if something wasn't intended to be offensive, but the recipient feels offended, then is it offensive?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it's pretty simple.

If people feel offended, then it's offensive. If they don't, then it isn't.

 

 

So, why do you give a **** about the history of the word and body paint and whether the coach was a real Native American and the moral character of the name change opponents?

 

You are just conceding this is just an election. If I can get a few thousand people on my side, I can change the name.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why do you give a **** about the history of the word and body paint and whether the coach was a real Native American and the moral character of the name change opponents?

I suspect you have me confused with somebody else. I don't think I have ever brought up any of those things.

When the name change supporters bring up those things, I feel obligated to point out that their claims are untrue. Out if a desire to keep the discussion factual. And because it really ticks me off to see people bringing up arguments that have already been shown to be rotten arguments, years ago.

But that's my desire to keep things honest, not because I think they're important b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it's pretty simple.

If people feel offended, then it's offensive. If they don't, then it isn't.

Although I assume it's possible to get philosophical, and debate the question of "if something wasn't intended to be offensive, but the recipient feels offended, then is it offensive?"

 

 

I agree with this, but even then, its not that simple.  Then the question becomes, what amount of what subsection of people must be offended?

 

Right, like if 1% of all americans are offended by something, well, thats probably because 1% of all americans are just too easily offended.  These are the people that write angry letters to the FCC about shirtless GUYS during the Super Bowl.  You really can't take this small tranch of people seriously.

 

BUT, you still need to draw a line somewhere.  It can't be the majority (i.e. 50%).  That is way too high of a bar.  If it took a majority to deem ANYTHING offensive, then very few things would be offensive.  I mean, pretty much everyone would agree that you should not be able to drop the F-bomb on primetime network TV, but is half the country really offended by that word?  Doubtful.

 

And who gives a **** if white people aren't offended by a word that has nothing to do with, and cannot be used to refer to, a white person.  Same goes for black folks/asians/etc.  

 

So then, back to the question, I would contend that the group you want to consider is clearly just that of Native Americans, and then the question becomes, how many need to be truly offended?  There have been letters written by big groups of NA's, and the response to them is always, well, thats not enough.  Ok, then how many is enough?

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What also ticks me off is how dismissive some are towards Goddard's research on the name Redskin:

 

The response to Goddard's paper is disappointing. Other than reiterating the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that the term owes its origin to scalping, Harjo and others have merely waved their hands, asserting that as Indians they know differently without presenting any evidence whatsoever. A typical example is found in this Native Village article, which quotes Harjo as follows:

 

I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on.

 

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo's primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism...

 

So, there you have it. On the one hand an utterly unsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo, who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin, of American Indian languages, or of the early history of relations between Indians and Europeans. On the other hand a detailed account with numerous explicit citations to original documents by Ives Goddard, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of American Indian languages and the documentation thereof.

 

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

 

That part in bold is especially important, because I believe it is the foundation behind many people's viewpoint...that nobody has any credibility in this debate outside of offended NAs. Even non-offended NAs should take a back seat to those who are offended. Facts no longer matter. Actually, I'll correct myself here: facts DO matter, until they are shown to not be facts at all. THEN facts don't matter anymore lol...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect you have me confused with somebody else. I don't think I have ever brought up any of those things.

When the name change supporters bring up those things, I feel obligated to point out that their claims are untrue. Out if a desire to keep the discussion factual. And because it really ticks me off to see people bringing up arguments that have already been shown to be rotten arguments, years ago.

But that's my desire to keep things honest, not because I think they're important b

 

Why does it matter if the claims are untrue?

Why does it matter if Capital R Redskins is different from lower case r redskins?

All that matters is whether people are offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, back to the question, I would contend that the group you want to consider is clearly just that of Native Americans, and then the question becomes, how many need to be truly offended? There have been letters written by big groups of NA's, and the response to them is always, well, thats not enough. Ok, then how many is enough?

I agree with you. (Including the parts I didn't quote).

That's why I think the writing is on the wall. There's too many people offended who AREN'T loons like Harjo or Hallbritter.

I think that, while the FACTS may be on the Redskin's side, that the media has succeeded in causing people to FEEL offended.

And that's what counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What also ticks me off is how dismissive some are towards Goddard's research on the name Redskin:

 

The response to Goddard's paper is disappointing. Other than reiterating the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that the term owes its origin to scalping, Harjo and others have merely waved their hands, asserting that as Indians they know differently without presenting any evidence whatsoever. A typical example is found in this Native Village article, which quotes Harjo as follows:

 

I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on.

 

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo's primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism...

 

So, there you have it. On the one hand an utterly unsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo, who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin, of American Indian languages, or of the early history of relations between Indians and Europeans. On the other hand a detailed account with numerous explicit citations to original documents by Ives Goddard, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of American Indian languages and the documentation thereof.

 

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

 

That part in bold is especially important, because I believe it is the foundation behind many people's viewpoint...that nobody has any credibility in this debate outside of offended NAs. Even non-offended NAs should take a back seat to those who are offended. Facts no longer matter. Actually, I'll correct myself here: facts DO matter, until they are shown to not be facts at all. THEN facts don't matter anymore lol...

 

So, here's what i find interesting about this.  First, if you click the embedded link, you get taken to a message board post, which ok, fine.

 

I just read 2 of the 3 cases that the author cites to.  The first one rules that "redskin" is offensive and concludes: "Thus, we conclude that the evidence of record establishes that, within the relevant time periods, the derogatory connotation of the word “redskin(s)” in connection with Native Americans extends to the term “Redskins,” as used in respondent’s marks in connection with the identified services, such that respondent’s marks may be disparaging of Native Americans to a substantial composite of this group of people." Meaning the court ultimately concluded that all the evidence suggested that then word and name were offensive.  They conducted a bunch of polls in reaching this conclusion, I encourage you to read the whole thing, particularly if you are going to refer to this as FACTS.

 

The reason I only read 2 out of the 3 cases is because the second case, the one that the author bases EVERY SINGLE ONE of his arguments on, the link doesn't work.  

 

The third case i read, but it does not discuss the word, it rules based on a technical legal doctrine called laches.  

 

 

So, in my opinion, this person's argument is really tough to put a lot of stock in.  

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's what i find interesting about this.  First, if you click the embedded link, you get taken to a message board post, which ok, fine.

 

I just read 2 of the 3 cases that the author cites to.  The first one rules that "redskin" is offensive and concludes: "Thus, we conclude that the evidence of record establishes that, within the relevant time periods, the derogatory connotation of the word “redskin(s)” in connection with Native Americans extends to the term “Redskins,” as used in respondent’s marks in connection with the identified services, such that respondent’s marks may be disparaging of Native Americans to a substantial composite of this group of people." Meaning the court ultimately concluded that all the evidence suggested that then word and name were offensive.  They conducted a bunch of polls in reaching this conclusion, I encourage you to read the whole thing, particularly if you are going to refer to this as FACTS.

 

The reason I only read 2 out of the 3 cases is because the second case, the one that the author bases EVERY SINGLE ONE of his arguments on, the link doesn't work.  

 

The third case i read, but it does not discuss the word, it rules based on a technical legal doctrine called laches.  

 

 

So, in my opinion, this person's argument is really tough to put a lot of stock in.  

 

 

What, exactly, do you think the person's argument is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That those cases are in any way relevant, or that Susan Harjo didn't win her case on the merits.

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why I believe that the name will probably change. The media got to them. And now nobody doesn't want to hear facts anymore. All they see is the word "skin" preceded by a color, and now they believe it to be offensive. End of story.

 

And that's not fair at all...

 

Honestly, it's not just "the media got to them."   Things actually changed over time.  All the dictionaries reflect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it's pretty simple.

If people feel offended, then it's offensive. If they don't, then it isn't.

 

So when does the world decide that its time to change something and when it's not? I know it's been said before but personally being a man who grew up in PG County who now lives in Dallas-Fort Worth I have learned to hate the word Yankee. I am a white 40 something year old man who served his country in the US Navy who now works at a high profile company. I am well respected but when someone down here wants to offend me they call me a Yankee. It's a slang term to me and it's rude and offensive, they don't say it jokingly they say it the same way someone wants to offend a Native American by calling him a Redskin. Why is Redskin such a buzz word and a term like Yankee not even talked about. Furthermore why would the effort to get rid of Chief Wahoo which has been going on for over 30 years go ignored when that is extremely offensive to people? I do not understand why the Redskins name is such a magnet and other things aren't getting any attention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I do not understand why the Redskins name is such a magnet and other things aren't getting any attention

 

It's because of the dictionaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if one is so monumentally stupid as to believe that somebody would name their football team after something insulting.

 

Larry.   How many times?

 

What was acceptable in 1932 is not the same as what is acceptable now.

 

And this argument is particularly funny when you remember that you are talking about George Preston Marshall.   He absolutely would have named his football team after something insulting to minorities - if he thought that the name would draw in the white fan base that he wanted to market to.   The white fan loyalty was the only thing he cared about, which is why he resisted allowing blacks on the team for decades.    

 

 

The problem with Redskins - ultimately - may be that it is just a bridge too far in terms of cultural appropriation. Like, "You couldn't have just stuck with "Braves" and left well enough alone?"

 

Exactly.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because of the dictionaries. 

 

I wouldn't expect that Chief Wahoo would be in a dictionary but yankee? That's in the dictionary. The definiton in Websters says "a person living in the Northern United States" which can't be argued but the meaning behind it has changed. Just like the word Cracker has changed in time, there used to be a Negro league baseball team called the Crackers. Now that sounds funny because it's taken on  a completely different meaning but did Websters change to reflect that new meaning? No

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cracker?show=0&t=1402604664

 

You can't really simply say "If something offends you then it's offensive" because things are always going to offend us. You can't just go by history because history is going to change. And you can't go by a dictionary because that doesn't keep up with the times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That those cases are in any way relevant, or that Susan Harjo didn't win her case on the merits.

 

Not even close lol.

 

Look at the title of the piece for a clue: "The Origin of Redskin"

 

And the rulilng on Harjo's case was overturned due to the lack of "merit". Just because the link is no longer active doesn't mean that didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the name changes, teams like the Braves, Indians, Chiefs and Blackhawks will have a few years before the same happens to them. Doesn't matter if they are "less" offensive. The argument will be using a people who were raped and pillaged here as a mascot being unacceptable. Then it will go back to the college ranks where the teams who have deals with tribes will come under attack from other NA's who say it doesn't matter, that they are offended as well.

 

We'll see a time where there are no teams called the Redskins or Seminoles or Utes. What I'm curious about now is what happens with the High Schools on reservations. Will they keep the names?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, do we all agree that Chief Wahoo is offensive?

 

I think we all agree on that.

 

Because Indian fans DO NOT agree with that. At all.

 

This thread is about a false report that the Indians killed the Chief Wahoo logo.

 

http://www.forums.mlb.com/discussions/Cleveland_Indians/General/Chief_Wahoo_Officially_OUT__BOYCOTT_THE_BLOCK_C/ml-indians/53420.1?redirCnt=1&nav=messages

 

I am so sorry my real feelings about Chief Wahoo cannot be written in this forum. Lousy move by the gutless politically correct Cleveland Indians. Go ahead roll over and play dead for anyone who doesn't think Wahoo is politically correct. It is a lousy cartoon character and something myself and thousands of Indians fans have grown up with. Bunch of sissies.

 

 

This is a travesty! I have been an Indians fan since i could walk growing up in the lorain-elyria area. As i got older going to games at the old municiple stadium-and even though the Indians were never any good the time i was growing up until 94-95 there always has been a sense of pride and tradition that i have always felt when seeing CHIEF WAHOO or hearing about or seeing MY INDIANS PLAY.

 

 

 For cow towing to a small minority who THINKS the team is racist!!????? Do you know who Larry Doby is??? The team was NAMED after an INDIAN!!!! What are the REDSKINS doing about their name?? What are the CHIEFS doing about theirs? What are the BRAVES doing about theirs? What is Florida State doing about the SEMINOLES!!??? What the the BLACKHAWKS doing about theirs??? The BLOCK C is TERRIBLE Chief WAHOO is the face of the team!! It's beautiful!!!!!

 

At the home opener i will stand next to the protesters, but with a poster saying "WHY DID YOU MURDER CHIEF WAHOO?!?!?". We will see how those hippies react to that, because no one seems to think that maybe having these native american named teams keeps reminding the public that Native Americans did exist.

 

Even though I think all of us knew this would happen it does make me a little sad. Chief Wahoo will always be the Cleveland Indians logo in my mind adaree. I am not going to waste my time with this but this politically correct stuff drives me nuts. Like I said it makes me a little sad because I can still remember Dad driving up to old municipal stadium and seeing that huge Chief Wahoo for the first time. I love that Chief Wahoo and always will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even close lol.

 

Look at the title of the piece for a clue: "The Origin of Redskin"

 

And the rulilng on Harjo's case was overturned due to the lack of "merit". Just because the link is no longer active doesn't mean that didn't happen.

 

No, I think I'm pretty dead on.  

 

Show me the case.

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.