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

[DM72]

No, that's not what I said, but you're clearly thinking it. After all, you brought it up in the first place.

It was you who said that Native Americans were only doing this because they're being told that they should be offended.

[Destino]

It's clearly not only driven by them. I'll ask this again. Are they [the Native Americans against the name] the majority? If so, fine, change the name.

Does "only" matter at all? No. The face of the movement now, and the reason that unlike in the past, this has refused to simply go away are the groups I mentioned. They are funded well enough to petition seemingly everyone to get on board and even produce ads and they are keeping this issue alive beyond the news cycle. The worst part is that if you thought it wasn't a slur before, they are making sure it is a slur now.

[gatito]

 

Part of this, too, is this rewriting of history to where AIs were only viewed as savages and never with sympathy or compassion or respect.  That is just not true.  People would not name their teams after peoples they didn't respect in most cases.  But part of that revision is also about what the AIs actually were, instead of the myth of the noble savage (interestingly, also applied to Vikings and Germanic peoples, as well at various points.)  No, some tribes were very civilized and peaceful, others like the Comanche were vicious and as close to justifying extermination as some.  Some tribes allied with the US against others, some hated Mexicans more (Apache, I think.)  Many practiced brutal forms of genocide and slavery.  If anything, the mascots preserve only the most honorable characteristics and overlook how the exchange between settler and indigenous people was not one way but was often bidirectional in brutality, savagery and evil.  AMerican political culture though, is all about hte underdog and of the "white man's" inexpiable original sin. (nevermind world history or how it has been European culture which has invented tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism, etc and on ad nauseum.)

 

This is a very telling post. The cultural bias and ignorance is on full display. You actually believe that some Native American tribes deserved to be brought to the brink of extinction but that showing a proud Indian Warrior on a football helmet makes it ok or am i miss-reading this?

[Hunter_R]

Does "only" matter at all? No. The face of the movement now, and the reason that unlike in the past, this has refused to simply go away are the groups I mentioned. They are funded well enough to petition seemingly everyone to get on board and even produce ads and they are keeping this issue alive beyond the news cycle. The worst part is that if you thought it wasn't a slur before, they are making sure it is a slur now.

You're ignoring the majority question. Are they a minority making a lot of noise, or are they speaking for the majority of Native Americans?

[KDawg]

But what does that prove? Ask.the same people when you hear the term 49er, what do you think of? I guarantee you they're not going to say anything about the 1849 California gold rush.

 

Because no one uses the term anymore otherwise.

 

What does someone think of when they think of a Panther? Or Viking? Or Lion? Or Cowboy? Do you think their first thought AND then their ONLY thought is the football team?

 

Absolutely not.

 

They think of the animal, or the norse warrior, or whatever a Cowboy is... Even if they include the football team in their response.

 

What do people think of when they hear Redskin? The football team. And, if you wanted more, I bet most would say "A Native American". I bet very few would say slur prior to all of this.

[blueskin]

Ah, but the Nazis have basically made it verboten to use the swastika, an ancient symbol I've seen in person on artifacts.  They also made it impolite to use the "salute" which is essentially the Roman salute (as far as we understand it, at least)  In fact, if you watch Glory or civil war movies, you'll see that salute more or less in use, just less upward.  But no one uses it anymore because of one warring faction's use of it.  Now, you can argue that non of this is off limits and nothing should stop you from dressing up for Halloween as a samurai, a Mongol warrior or a Wehmacht soldier.  

 

So?  Where is the proof that GPM's wife got 'Hail Victory' from 'Seig Heil'?  So the Republicans are right in saying that MSNBC"s motto comes from the Communists (Forward)?

[Hunter_R]

It was you who said that Native Americans were only doing this because they're being told that they should be offended.

In response to this.

But who are you or anyone to tell Native Americans what they should be offended by?

Which was asked by you. I've been asking if the majority of Native American believe it to be offensive.

[deejaydana]

you shall all bow down to the Tolerance Police! All must follow what they hold to be true. Harry Reid never attending another Redskins game can only serve to improve the teams on field chances.

[gatito]

 

And, if you wanted more, I bet most would say "A Native American". I bet very few would say slur prior to all of this.

 

 

And right there you have made their argument for them. The term is not and should not be synonymous with Native American. Again even if one does not consider it offensive the name helps to reduce Native Americans to a stereotype which does not accurately reflect their broad history or diversity.

[bowhunter]

So you're okay with it being labeled offensive if more than just Native Americans spoke out about it? Just want to make sure I parsed this right.

No, I'm okay with it being labeled offensive only if it's actually offensive. Why would I limit my opinion to what any particular subset likes? In my neck of the woods, the word "liberal" is quite an insult, yet there are quite a few voters who cherish that term. So since the majority has ruled, I can throw that term around willy-nilly  without offending anyone.

[Zazzaro703]

I'm not so sure. We've all seen what distractions can do to a football team. I have a feeling this will de-rail us on the field eventually. Players could get very sick of answering questions about it or having opponents and their fans use the name against them. It's my chief concern.

Very easy to answer "no comment". I find it offensive that a bunch of rich politicians are sticking their nose in this instead of doing the things their ran their election campaigns on. I doubt there is more than 1,000 NA that are really offeneded by this. Everyone else that is is only offended because they were told its offensive. When 99% of the country hears the name redskins, they think football.

[ram29jackson]

where is the 1000 man-Indian march ? where is the 10 Indians in front of every super market in America getting petitions for change.

  Just like gay marriage, its taking a few whiners to get govt to do what they want when the majority have already said no leave it alone, we don't care. Mob rule mentality enforced by govt.

 

and when its over..what will Indians get out of it ? nothing, just like government has given them for 100 years. Did the colleges who change their name somehow make more money for indian casino's or something ? did the united Indian college fund get some cash ?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

This will be the end of the current name. It will not be up to just Danny Boy. The NFLs revenue sharing agreement will have baring on the matter now. All the other teams with the exception of the Cowboys share in the $$$ that the "Skins" name generates. When you cannot stop the unlicensed RG3, Jackson, Rak & Garcon merchandise from flooding the market place the other owners will loose $$$$$. Smaller market teams will not want to loose their piece of the "Skins" merchandise.

 

I think it is long over due.

The Redskins still own the trademark rights during the appeal process, so this is completely irrelevant until a ruling has been made.  There already is so much bootleg gear from China anyhow, you want a jersey, you can get one for $20 and there are a gazillion websites to order from.  

[Destino]

You're ignoring the majority question. Are they a minority making a lot of noise, or are they speaking for the majority of Native Americans?

I avoid the majority argument because it's not as strong as people think. An example:

What percentage are you comfortable offending? 49% or less? Would you be comfortable insulting a third of Native American's with your Redskin hat? What about a quarter? What if it comes down to specific tribes or geographical areas? Is it ok to use a word western tribes find deeply offensive, so long as they don't represent more than, say 20% of unverifiable Native Americans in a poll?

I think the numbers argument only works if the numbers are in the single digits that are offended and the reason given for offense is historically inaccurate. I think that's what the situation used to be. I suspect that the massive PR campaign in recent years has changed the landscape of this debate and this ruling comes at a bad time. It will appear to validate the arguments of those seeking to change the name.

[daveakl]

Bad example because I'm not ****ing a football team. Your example is closer to trading in for a new model.

We are getting ****ed by it lol

[blueskin]

you shall all bow down to the Tolerance Police! All must follow what they hold to be true. Harry Reid never attending another Redskins game can only serve to improve the teams on field chances.

 

you shall all bow down to the Tolerance Police! All must follow what they hold to be true. Harry Reid never attending another Redskins game can only serve to improve the teams on field chances.

 

Iraq is burning.  The economy may be slowing down again.  Inflation is up.  Food prices are way up.  The national debt is 17 trillion.  There are minors being abandoned on our southern border.  Russia is subsuming Ukraine.  China is threatening Vietnam, Japan, the Phillipines, and is building an artificial island in Vietnamese territory.  Canada has given up on the Keystone pipeline and now will transport their oil to the Pacific to sell to the aforementioned Chinese instead of us.  Gas prices are going to skyrocket soon.  The NSA is tapping our electronic communications. 

 

Yet these ****s in the capitol are hyperventilating about the name of our football team. 

I avoid the majority argument because it's not as strong as people think. An example:

What percentage are you comfortable offending? 49% or less? Would you be comfortable insulting a third of Native American's with your Redskin hat? What about a quarter? What if it comes down to specific tribes or geographical areas? Is it ok to use a word western tribes find deeply offensive, so long as they don't represent more than, say 20% of unverifiable Native Americans in a poll?

I think the numbers argument only works if the numbers are in the single digits that are offended and the reason given for offense is historically inaccurate. I think that's what the situation used to be. I suspect that the massive PR campaign in recent years has changed the landscape of this debate and this ruling comes at a bad time. It will appear to validate the arguments of those seeking to change the name.

 

Go root for another team, please.

[Destino]

where is the 1000 man-Indian march ? where is the 10 Indians in front of every super market in America getting petitions for change.

Just like gay marriage, its taking a few whiners to get govt to do what they want when the majority have already said no leave it alone, we don't care. Mob rule mentality enforced by govt.

These few angry Native Americans are just like those gays! I'm sure that argument will prove to be the silver ballet we've been looking for.

Go root for another team, please.

No.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

What does a tomahawk chop represent? War? What about the actual chant? Wearing headdresses? Native Americans just see this as a way to keep them in the past. They are against all NA mascots. Not just the Redskins. And no, not every NA cares.

Good luck trying to get a tomahawk chop removed from thousands of fans that attend college/professional games where the mascot is tied to Native American Indians.  It simply will not happen, nor should it be removed.  

 

I'm a Seminoles fan, the team honors the Seminole tribe that originated in Florida.  They honor said tribe with the spear ceremony each game home football game.  It in no way shape or form is offensive.  As far as the chop, its a metaphor to going to war on the field, beating down your opponent.  

 

Again, the fans do it, and there is no way anyone can stop them from doing it.  

[Zazzaro703]

Senator Reids approval rating is 33%, im so glad he has time to worry about the name of a football team instead of focusing on his job and how he sucks at it. I live in Nevada, he is terrible.

[EvilMonkeyBoy]

Yet these ****s in the capitol are hyperventilating about the name of our football team.

The US Capitol is at the USPTO on Dulany St in Alexandria?

Having staff draft a strongly worded letter doesn't take nearly as much time and energy as you might think. Photo ops on the steps ain't an all day affair either(Usually)

I've never been a fan of the "Why are they spending time on this" argument for anything. The government is people and moving parts. You may argue our capacity to multitask effectively isn't as great as it used to be, but our country doesn't operate like a honey do checklist.

[Ghost of]

This is a very telling post. The cultural bias and ignorance is on full display. You actually believe that some Native American tribes deserved to be brought to the brink of extinction but that showing a proud Indian Warrior on a football helmet makes it ok or am i miss-reading this?

You're misreading it.  I'm not actually making the argument that anyone should be brought to the brink of extinction (other than the damn Dutch! jk) but that our understanding of history is entirely captive to present-day notions, including romantic notions of who or what is right in war.

 

I could argue, (not my actual belief), that any war you win is a war which is moral.  If the goal is to get another people to submit and take their land, or end incursions or resistance to your rule, you are no less right than anyone else.  In other words, American Indian tribes did much of the same thing to other tribes, including extermination and I would no more ask one tribe to apologize to another as I would ask contemporary Americans to apologize to American Indians.  The tribes we have now are actualy a kind of frozen in time, white man's categorization of the indigenous peoples.  Tribes rose and fell, kingdoms rose and fell and genocide and slavery and rape and butchery were fairly common.  The sort of "Civilized" war which arose for some civilizations later on (and only in certain contexts) is a product of their development and the growth of a certain moral sentiment (Christian and Buddhist, mainly) about how wars are to be conducted.  

 

Sorry, a bit distracted but my argument goes to how we form this moral view of war and history and impose it on the past and then we end up hypocritical because we do not judge some peoples or notions against the same standard as others.  And today, that generally means Europeans or whites must genuflect before their "collective" guilt (even though that is another standard that is immoral but expedient in this case) for atrocities, while no other peoples must do that. It is so powerful a cultural impulse that we cannot afford to talk plainly or fairly about history and reality and must construct a new mythology as simplistic as old "savages vs. cowboys" ones that were themselves not universally subscribed to.

[Going Commando]

And why would the team already branded by the distinction of being forced to integrate want to be caught in the middle of that? Dan Snyder should have gotten out ahead of this and not been the second owner of this franchise forced to yield on a racial issue. Snyder has never been great at picking his battles however so we have two more years of appeals and negativity to endure before he takes his place next to GPM in the history books.

Yep. Snyder should have seen which way the wind was blowing ages ago, gotten in front of the story and turned a negative into a positive. Reactionary moron.

[Gamebreaker]

UnWise Mike is a sensitive little girl. He tweets his propaganda all day, and when someone starts interjecting facts into his fragile, delusional world he starts calling names. Really shows the character of that guy.

[Ghost of]

Iraq is burning.  The economy may be slowing down again.  Inflation is up.  Food prices are way up.  The national debt is 17 trillion.  There are minors being abandoned on our southern border.  Russia is subsuming Ukraine.  China is threatening Vietnam, Japan, the Phillipines, and is building an artificial island in Vietnamese territory.  Canada has given up on the Keystone pipeline and now will transport their oil to the Pacific to sell to the aforementioned Chinese instead of us.  Gas prices are going to skyrocket soon.  The NSA is tapping our electronic communications. 

 

 

Oh, understand, the elites have abandoned responsible stewardship of the lands over which they hold sway.  To the extent they can even recognize reality, they seem slave to passing and faddish notions tied to America's pre-eminent role as "Freedumb's guardian" across the world.  They swamp their peoples with foreigners to punish and garner permanent voting blocs, they ridicule and harass people who basically speak the same language as anti-colonialists did a century ago, they make a virtue of loyalty and fidelity to nothingness, they avoid anything resembling seriousness, they grow fat off the misery of their workers or 'constituents',they eschew either realpolitik or truly idealistic actions in the world abroad and have their domestic subjects consumed with distractions, be they popular entertainment or nonsensical social crusades against undefeated foes like human nature.  I can't wait until the thing collapses, frankly.

UnWise Mike is a sensitive little girl. He tweets his propaganda all day, and when someone starts interjecting facts into his fragile, delusional world he starts calling names. Really shows the character of that guy.

I had a correspondence with him but he didn't seem interested in his facts, only in what he had already believed.  

 

Haidt is right.  People form a moral judgment and develop the rationale later.  The dimensions of moral evaluation are different between peoples and that means we are going to always be at war with each other.  We should just leave each other alone (except we can't in a national-scale, mass society that doesn't have meaningful local levels of autonomy)

[ram29jackson]

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/70/12/5472922/3/1103x1103.jpg