Mr. Sinister Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 this is CERTAINLY true. (and personally i wish 98% of those actively campaigning to keep th ename would STFU, so that this controversy would have a chance of receding) I don't think people not talking about keeping the name will stop them from campaigning to change it. They feel strongly about it. Resistance, and furthermore, complete dumbassery in defending the name, only serves to galvanize them. They aren't going anywhere, and quite frankly, they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 that is what i was getting at. nicely put. This is true of all social issues though, isn't it? It's almost always a small percentage of people pushing an idea. I am in no way shape or form creating an equivalency here (which means that everyone is going to yell that I am creating an equivalency here). I repeat, I am in no way shape or form creating an equivalency here. But during the 30s and 40s, the NAACP never had more than 100,000 members and at the strength of its power and influence never had more than 600,000 members. So, the civil rights movement probably never engaged more than 10 percent of the black population at any given time. By the way, this is in no way equivalent. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't believe there is a single Native American in the country losing sleep over the Redskins name. That doesn't mean that they endorse it or approve it or disapprove of it. The passion on this subject is certainly on the Pro-name side, because losing something tangible is always going to rally people. i think i get what youre saying, but i do believe the passion in this argument when it comes to native americans is on the pro name change side. these people are activists who are driven by a perceived wrong. those who are fans are likely thinking 'ya i could care less about the team either way, ho hum'. this is why the media appears to believe its an entire race thats offended when it appears to be a minority. the activists are always speaking on behalf of the entire race "its a derogatory word to indians, to us" etc. you'll never hear them say 'its offensive to me, but that just my .02' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'm not an opponent of the name, and that's kind of my point. I don't associate the word with a group of people, I associate it with a football team.... but the argument is that the people that are being offended by it ARENT associating it with a football team - they're associating it with a racial slur. Edit: I asked that question in response to a poster who made the claim that the term Redskin is not derogatory. Redskins is not a racial slur and it never was. Redskins was never commonly used in a disparaging manner even in the darkest genecidal days of the 19th century (Other words were used). I of course can't say never as all nouns can and probably have been used in disparaging manners by someone. In order to be a slur it has be commonly used by people in a derogatory manner. There is a difference between being offensive and being a slur. The offending party creates a slur, not the offended party. You can argue that Redskins is offensive to some people (tiny minority of a tiny minority in this case) but to argue it is a slur would not be based on historical fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 if it was a well constructed random sample, then yes, it WOULD be sufficient to capture attitudes with a high level of confidence. the problem is, that survey was taken a while ago, certainly before the current sh*tstorm erupted. and.... 10% thinking something is offensive is not insignificant. this isn't an election. if 10% really feel wounded by the name (and i am not asserting that 10% really are HURT by the name, just saying IF... ), that that is a really bad thing. if 10% of a second grade classroom is allergic to peanuts, you don't just shrug and say "ah well... most will survive" (well... you might if you are my brother ) That's the thing, people truly are saying 10% is not enough. Which begs the obvious follow-up question. I don't believe there is a single Native American in the country losing sleep over the Redskins name. That doesn't mean that they endorse it or approve it or disapprove of it. The passion on this subject is certainly on the Pro-name side, because losing something tangible is always going to rally people. I can agree with that. It probably falls under the "we have bigger fish to fry" category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason17 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok, my very first extreamskins post. Been a fan since 1980. I just want to voice a thought on the name issue, then I'll go back to a reader and a non-poster. What If we Changed the name to Washington Americans but left the Indian logo. How many people would have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 i think i get what youre saying, but i do believe the passion in this argument when it comes to native americans is on the pro name change side. these people are activist who are driven by a perceived wrong. those who are fans are likely like 'ya i could care less about the team either way, ho hum'. this is why the media appears to believe its an entire race thats offended when it appears to be a minority. the activists are always speaking on behalf of the entire race "its a derogatory word to indians, to us" ets. you'll never hear them say 'its offensive to me, but that just my .02' Activists are always more engaged. That's what makes them activists. Again...this is not an equivalent argument.....But what percentage of the gay population do you think is filing lawsuits and marching for marriage rights now? Less than 10 percent? That's probably about right. Again....not an equivalent...but how many women were suffragists? Most people are not engaged on any issue - even if we argue about it on message boards. The word "activists" is always snarled by people defending the status quo, because the people defending the status quo always believe that activists are a minority within a minority. Which they are. It doesn't mean they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Most people aren't familiar with Annenberg outside of this poll, but acting like they know anything about them or what they do or how they do it. justice, are you really saying the annenberg institute didnt know what they were doing? cuz it kinda sounds like you are. btw- those other question about how it was collected- that info is available if you google it. been posted in this thread several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 It's not a glorious argument. At the same time, it does reveal what an odd, anachronistic word it is. Would you go up to a black guy and say "hey black guy" Or hell would you come up to me and say "Hello Muslim" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I've mostly been keeping out of this thread, but I feel I need to make some general comments that aren't a response to anyone. Personally, I'm still a supporter of the name, despite those around me who feel otherwise. Personally, I can't judge whether Redskins is offensive to Native Americans (tho, given the disagreement about that, putting it on the level of the N-Word seems a bit over-the-top), but what I can speak to is the context that most associate the term with the football team in Washington. In that context, I don't see anything offensive. The team seems to treat its representation of Native Americans with respect. If there were cases like the Tomahawk Chop or Chief Wahoo associated with this team, I might understand the arguments. If there were people using the team as an inspiration for discrimination, I might understand the arguments. But, I'm not seeing it and the people against the name aren't making those kind of arguments, just that the name is offensive to some people. The thing that gets me about all this is, after all the effort and money spent, what does this do for Native Americans? As far as I can tell, very little. Changing the name won't do anything about racism. Changing the name won't make the lives of Native Americans any better. I know Snyder has been derided for setting up a foundation, but isn't that better than just a name change and sweeping the problems of Native Americans under the rug? Certainly that will happen if a name change does come about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Would you go up to a black guy and say "hey black guy" Or hell would you come up to me and say "Hello Muslim" or "Hey Yankee" or "Hey Cowboy" or "Hey Giant" - it's all in the context I think the 1st question should be what percentage of people need to be offended by it for it to change? is it 10%? 20%? just majority? It's really hard to say, some may not like it but it is what it is. Things are never going to be 100% - if the president has an approval rating at just 60% then are we going to make him leave office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Activists are always more engaged. That's what makes them activists. Again...this is not an equivalent argument.....But what percentage of the gay population do you think is filing lawsuits and marching for marriage rights now? Less than 10 percent? That's probably about right. Again....not an equivalent...but how many women were suffragists? Most people are not engaged on any issue - even if we argue about it on message boards. The word "activists" is always snarled by people defending the status quo, because the people defending the status quo always believe that activists are a minority within a minority. Which they are. It doesn't mean they are wrong Yeah just because one is an activist doesn't mean they're wrong, but activists usually are wrong (If I recall from my old college course I think 90% plus of activist causes either are discarded, die out, or are discredited - in the latter hopefully before they succeed). And in this case they are wrong and need to be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Would you go up to a black guy and say "hey black guy" Or hell would you come up to me and say "Hello Muslim" Would I? Have you met me? I totally would. Not really. I would never say, "Hi, racial descriptor" to anyone, because that's weird. But I love talking about race and religion and diffrent cultural experiences with people. So, I would say, "What do you think Muslims think about......?" Not that I think you speak for all Muslims, but I know 4 and you are one of those four so go with it. I would totally use the word Muslim in front of you. A lot. Constantly in fact. You would grow to hate me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Don't let Syder pick our new name! Let regional Native Americans select a new, more respectful, name and we may able to keep our logo. That Dude looks fierce. I think Snyder should pick the new name. It's his team. He should choose a name referring to a group or culture he himself belongs to and - just to show how you are supposed to be thick-skinned about these things - he should pick a name some in that group might find offensive. Something like the Washington Jew Boys. Replace the Indian chief with a profile of Jackie Mason. That'll show 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 justice, are you really saying the annenberg institute didnt know what they were doing? cuz it kinda sounds like you are. btw- those other question about how it was collected- that info is available if you google it. been posted in this thread several times. Don't know what they're doing is way too strong, I'm sure they've got smart people over there. But the survey is not without criticism in it's planning and methodology is what I'm saying. Not to go too much into it, cuz we could be here all day. But the survey didn't ask a follow up question regarding how people were native american. For example, you've got people here, talking stuff like they're 1/8 Native American on their great uncle's side. The number of people who self-identify as Native American far exceeds the the actual tribal membership. And they're pretty specific about what actually makes someone NA. The survey included people who self identify I would suspect there's a LOT of people that probably self identify as NA, but don't meet the requirements of the tribe. Not saying their opinions are completely invalid, but that's not an insignificant detail. The second thing I would argue, is it was a telephone survey. Now that's something just about all of us can relate to. You ever got called for a survey? Do you really care about your responses or do you just wanna get off the phone? Is it a stretch to think people often tell pollsters what they wanna hear to be done with it? The best surveys are the ones where you're actually engaged and taking your time to think about the questions. And the question itself was poorly worded. Go look at the question they asked. The lawsuit against the team was represented by groups representing over a million Native Americans. But it's not a poll, so I guess that doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Based on how the team has played since Snyder took over, there really can only be one logical name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiv Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 If this continue to be a distraction during te season and our players and coaching staff get consistently asked questions, I'm going to be really mad. This team doesn't need distractions coming off a 3-13 season with a new head coach. Distractions are the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This is fun. http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shredmojo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Okay, I just wanted to add my opinion. First off, I am Cherokee and have a CDIB card, which by no means makes me an expert on Native American affairs or opinions, I did however grow up on an Indian reservation(Osage County in Oklahoma) I also spent 10 years living in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Which is the Capitol of the Cherokee tribe(well ONE of the Cherokee tribes). Needless to say I have been around countless Native Americans from almost all the tribes my entire life. I have always proudly supported my teams colors, and never given a thought to term Redskins being offensive. I've NEVER had anyone, other than white people recently, tell me that its offensive. Oklahoma football has a long history of Indian mascots, even a professional team in the 1920s "Hominy Indians" who beat the New York Giants. The Union Redskins(suburb of Tulsa) are one of the most dominant 6A High School football teams in the state every year. Basically my point, as a Redskin fan hearing about how offensive our teams name is to Indians. I feel I'm kind of at Ground Zero here in Oklahoma.....And I've yet to meet a Native American that cares what our name is. Honestly I've meet some that wore the colors/logos just for the Indian representation and didn't even watch football. Also, keep in mind when you see things like the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma finds the name offensive, so that must mean the 189,000 members of that tribe find it offensive. No. Just because the Tribal Government issues a statement doesn't mean that is "the view" of that tribe. It's all just politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This is fun. http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513 This too! http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok, my very first extreamskins post. Been a fan since 1980. I just want to voice a thought on the name issue, then I'll go back to a reader and a non-poster. What If we Changed the name to Washington Americans but left the Indian logo. How many people would have a problem with that. Our new fight song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiv Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Good grief I hate this argument from opponents of the name No you wouldn't call them Redskins unless they played for the Washington Redskins. I'd go up to Joe Gibbs and call him a Redskin. Same with Art Monk. But not my friend Patrick Van Pelt who I grew up with. I would call him a Redskins fan though Why wouldn't you call a Native American a redskin? You can't have it both ways. If the name of the team is derived from a people, you should probably feel comfortable calling them that. Could you call a Seminole a Seminole even if he doesn't have any ties to Florida State University? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemocystem Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Our new fight song? I'd go with this, & have RGIII come out first & duplicate all the histrionics: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Why wouldn't you call a Native American a redskin? You can't have it both ways. If the name of the team is derived from a people, you should probably feel comfortable calling them that. Could you call a Seminole a Seminole even if he doesn't have any ties to Florida State University? Out of curiosity, do you feel that brave, chief, and canuck would all be OK to call someone or do you feel those names should be changed also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Why wouldn't you call a Native American a redskin? You can't have it both ways. Right. To do otherwise would be to violate the well-known grammar rule which states that it is impossible for a word to have more than one meaning. And the well-known rule that states that, if it is possible to use a word in an offensive manner, then said word cannot be used in any manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.