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

[SkinsGuy]

Larry writes:

How do you feel about the actual Native Americans who say it's NOT offensive?

Or do they not count as "live human beings"?

Of course they don't count. They are just uneducated fools, kissing up to the white man.

Or something.

[Spearfeather]

Sigh .... So proud of some of my fellow Redskins fans.

 

So proud

[Major Harris]

But behind closed doors, they already have a plan to help pay for all the changes while making Snyder look like the good guy to the DC fans. How he fought till the end to support the name and the fans.

Still would just prefer no nickname as the alternative.

The other owners will do no favors for Danny

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Once you meet an actual Native American who tells you they're unhappy with what we do as football fans, the conversation becomes uncomfortable, quickly. Engaging with a live human being is a lot different than tellin 'em how it is through a key board.

It damn sure wouldn't for me, trust me lol...

Of course they don't count. They are just uneducated fools, kissing up to the white man.

Or something.

You're not far off...ever read the comments section of an NA-themed article written by a Native American who doesn't tow the "Redskin is a racist slur" line? Sounds a helluva lot like what you just wrote there. Only worse.

[elkabong82]

I wouldn't advance this 90% statistic with such bravado. I seriously doubt that number is accurate, but even granting it, what about the 10% who are offended?

The reasons have been stated repeatedly, it seems to me you're the one ignoring the other side of the case here.

Suppose we were called the "Blackskins" or the "Jews". What then?

Most dictionaries describe the term "redskin" as "dated," "offensive," "contemptuous," "disparaging," etc. Like it or not, the word has come to have racist connotations (unless you would contend that the makers of dictionaries don't know what words mean).

That's just false. The President just commented on this recently.

I suppose you think this thread, with all its entries, media articles, and ongoing debate, is just a flash in the pan.

It seems to me the case is just the opposite. It takes a good bit of courage to come in here and express the opinion he is expressing, given that he is clearly in the minority on this board, and he surely faces the type of vitriol that has been directed at people of his opinion repeatedly in this thread.

This argument is just nonsense. It is basically the same as telling people "love it or leave it" when they object to something about America, as if criticizing ones country is unpatriotic. You can love the team and want the name to change, just as you can love your country without loving everything about it.

Perhaps he even wants us to change the name because he loves the team so much. I'm in that camp myself.

 

We've been down this road before and most of your questions have been answered in this thread some time ago.

 

First off, 90% outweigh 10%, heavily, and fact is that 10% is not enough tow arrant change.

 

Now, if we even were to consider what 10% think, then we'd have to look at the legitimacy of their offense. We have, and it's bogus, there's no meat to it. The name's origin was created by NAs, it's not used in any offensive manner, the team logo was designed by NAs as well, NA schools also use the name, and for the majority of the word's history it has been a benign descriptor, as was it's original intent, and it's use as an offensive word is incredibly antiquated. Believe it or not, some people will get worked up about the silliest things due to misperception, but that doesn't mean every single offended person has to be catered to.

 

And I'll advance the 90% figure all I want because it was a legit poll carried out properly and you and any others saying it is way off have no basis for such a claim, little understanding of how the process was done and how near-impossible it would be for the 90% number to way off, and your only ground for claiming it's wrong is simple desire for it to be so and a willingness to ignore fact.

 

And I know the reasons have been stated by some. I was talking about that poster specifically, so no, I wasn't ignoring anything. 

 

The blackskins argument has been addresses in here too. It's a stupid argument. Blackskins would be used to be intentionally offensive. It doesn't have an origin and long-standing use as a benign descriptor. Jews is a better example. Jews is not offensive though unless you mean it to be or use it as an adjective. It wouldn't be a good team name, but it wouldn't be offensive as a football team name either. In fact, Snyder as owner and being Jewish would likely be given a pass by those who would be potentially offended. The dictionary nonsense has been addressed repeatedly too, get some new talking points.

 

I live in TN. I never hear about the name stuff down here and when is the last time it was talked about nationally by a sports outlet? Of course locally up there you'll hear it more because the team gets more coverage, but even then most of the time it's some local guy trying to generate clicks. Of course in this thread we talk about it more, because it is relevant to us. But as a big issue, one that would be big enough to create a change, this thing doesn't have the legs. It popped up in 2012 when the team had national attention, and each season since then it's not been as prevalent nationally. Few show up to any protests, only a couple games even have them, and other than local it's not even discussed most of the year. It may pop up preseason, but then it goes away for the rest of the season. Heck, even sportswriters who swore off the name have since used it again.

 

I said his opinion on the matter and his reasoning for wanting a name change was wimpy. I didn't say he was a wimpy person. So him having "courage" to express an unpopular opinion is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the opinion itself.

 

The argument is no nonsense. People can easily root for another team. People have no problem boycotting products, they do it all the time. The football team is also a product and if someone truly cared about NAs and truly thought the name as so offensive to them that it had to be changed, then they would boycott the product. That's not "love it or leave it." Seems you and others wanting the name changed want to have your cake and eat it too. I'll say it flat out, if you truly believed the name was offensive to NAs and had to be changed, then you would boycott the team. Based on your own opinions, you are rooting for a team with a name you believe is racist, when you have the choice not too. It takes away from your conviction on the matter.

[elkabong82]

I do wonder about this. You'd think if they thought they could convince every Native American school that used the name Braves or Chiefs or Redskins to change. They would. 

 

End of the day, doesn't matter. I think the plan is already in place and will be executed at some point. The league/owners will tell the Skins and maybe KC that the names can't be used anymore. But behind closed doors, they already have a plan to help pay for all the changes while making Snyder look like the good guy to the DC fans. How he fought till the end to support the name and the fans.

 

Still would just prefer no nickname as the alternative. 

 

Highly doubtful. The league's revenue has not been effected by this at all and many of the other owners rely on the Redskins as a revenue sharing cash cow. Only thing that is going to force a name change is we fans all of a sudden all wanting it to be changed and being loud and vocal about that fact. 

[grego]

I wouldn't advance this 90% statistic with such bravado. I seriously doubt that number is accurate, but even granting it, what about the 10% who are offended?

 

 

thats not nearly as pretentious as those who continue to rip the poll on the basis that they simply dont like the results. 

 

the director of the annenburg poll, as i've mentioned here before, is pro name change, yet stands by the poll.

 

Most dictionaries describe the term "redskin" as "dated," "offensive," "contemptuous," "disparaging," etc. Like it or not, the word has come to have racist connotations (unless you would contend that the makers of dictionaries don't know what words mean).

 

 

the fact that you still bring this argument up is either an indicator of desperation, or just proves youre trolling. 

[Kosher Ham]

 

The argument is no nonsense. People can easily root for another team. People have no problem boycotting products, they do it all the time. The football team is also a product and if someone truly cared about NAs and truly thought the name as so offensive to them that it had to be changed, then they would boycott the product. That's not "love it or leave it." Seems you and others wanting the name changed want to have your cake and eat it too. I'll say it flat out, if you truly believed the name was offensive to NAs and had to be changed, then you would boycott the team. Based on your own opinions, you are rooting for a team with a name you believe is racist, when you have the choice not to. It takes away from your conviction on the matter.

 

That is a powerful statement. I agree completely.

 

The other part of this particular paragraph that I agree completely with is, boycotting products or brands.

There is a restaurant here, where over 50 people got sick (not myself)...they serve sushi (among other things) , I won't ever eat there again.

[elkabong82]

That is a powerful statement. I agree completely.

 

The other part of this particular paragraph that I agree completely with is, boycotting products or brands.

There is a restaurant here, where over 50 people got sick (not myself)...they serve sushi (among other things) , I won't ever eat there again.

 

I'll even take it a step further. RFKFedex asked what we would say to NAs who are offended in person. I'll ask, what would he and others who think the name should be changed say to those same NAs when they tell them they agree but still root for the team, still wear the jerseys, still buy merchandise, still buy tickets, etc. and get an unhappy response?

 

Seems to me, if I was offended by something and then someone said they agreed with me but then also said they still support that thing financially when they have an easy choice not to, that I wouldn't very likely take them seriously. I'd probably think they were just paying lip service and didn't truly believe in my cause. 

 

It's like telling an African American person that you agree the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, but then you go and buy t-shirts with that flag on it and continue flying that flag.

[Kosher Ham]

You mean those 14 people ?

 

Please, he would as others, back off and leave it be.

[ZRagone]

Once you meet an actual Native American who tells you they're unhappy with what we do as football fans, the conversation becomes uncomfortable, quickly. Engaging with a live human being is a lot different than tellin 'em how it is through a key board. 

 

Kind of like those high and mighty white folk on this board that think they know better than those silly native americans about what should be offensive to them. I'm sure once you meet an actual Native American you ramble on about how it's actually offensive and insulting to native americans and is racist and they tell you how they support and are proud of the name, it'd become uncomfortable, quickly. Engaging with a live human being is a lot different than tellin 'em how it is through a key board.

 

FFS, as if it's only the other side engaging in bravado online while the other side is this high and mighty noble savior on a white steed :roll:

It damn sure wouldn't for me, trust me lol...

You're not far off...ever read the comments section of an NA-themed article written by a Native American who doesn't tow the "Redskin is a racist slur" line? Sounds a helluva lot like what you just wrote there. Only worse.

 

Remember, it's offensive to say the name...but perfectly okay for UnWise Mike to call native americans who disagree with him "Uncle Tomahawks" or just outright declare they're not a "real" native American.

[China]

The name's origin was created by NAs, it's not used in any offensive manner, the team logo was designed by NAs as well,

 

 

As for the team logo thing, I know the Redskins claim that their logo was created by Native Americans in 1971, but I'm not buying it.  It looks exactly like the Native American on the Indian head nickel (designed by James Fraser in 1913).  If they paid for that they got ripped off, because whoever gave it to them just copied it from the nickle design.

 

[daveakl]

China: Are you saying all native Americans look the same?

[Boss_Hogg]

UnWise Mike is back on the issue. 

 

This time he's comparing the confederate flag to the team's logo. 

 

I actually stumbled upon a Klan rally in WV recently, I saw tons of confederate flags but no Skins flags. 

 

Are the assholes in the white robes waving the wrong flag Mike?

I was starting to understand and feel with the folks wanting the name and logo changed, but when you throw out bull **** like this, it hurts your side of the argument.

 

**** you UnWise Mike

[zoony]

Texas Rangers killed more Comanche than smallpox. What kind of pressure is that team facing from the PC police? Just curious

[elkabong82]

Texas Rangers killed more Comanche than smallpox. What kind of pressure is that team facing from the PC police? Just curious

 

That would require knowledge of history, which that side has already decided they will completely ignore with this. 

[Spearfeather]

 

 

As for the team logo thing, I know the Redskins claim that their logo was created by Native Americans in 1971, but I'm not buying it.  It looks exactly like the Native American on the Indian head nickel (designed by James Fraser in 1913).  If they paid for that they got ripped off, because whoever gave it to them just copied it from the nickle design.

 

 

 

 

Actually, their original logo, and current throwback logo, look much more like the buffalo nickel design, than their current logo. And, it's not the Redskins claim, it's the Wetzel's family claim also.

 

      

[RFKFedEx]

How do you feel about the actual Native Americans who say it's NOT offensive?

Or do they not count as "live human beings?

 

More power to em Larry. The R word can be their word, it doesn't need to be mine anymore. I'm a football fan, not an Indian.

[Boss_Hogg]

I still think all Indian sports mascots should be retired, ours included. I came to this conclusion after reading several studies by the American Psychological Assiciation about the harmful effects of indian mascots. I've also had the pleasure of meeting real native Americans on my recent travels around the country. I learned a lot.

For the time being, we should keep the name but revert back to the lombardi R or the Gibbs R. Drop all native imagery, spears, headdresses, etc.

I don't think the name is racist, however I think we shouldnt use the race of a people as a sports mascot.

Call me a traitor, asshole, fake, or whatever...but I love this team and I always will. I just think we need a re-brand.

[chipwhich]

How do you feel about the actual Native Americans who say it's NOT offensive?

Or do they not count as "live human beings"?

 

This thread is very similar to the gay marriage thread, in reverse.  It's amusing the "progressive" folks in that thread, who are like the "extreme right" in this thread.

Congrats.

[Kosher Ham]

More power to em Larry. The R word can be their word, it doesn't need to be mine anymore. I'm a football fan, not an Indian.

 

I'm not Indian (there are several on this board that you could talk to though), I am a Native American. My blood lines lead back to the very start.

 

Would you like to take it down that road ?

 

I don't mind when you are making points in this thread, I simply find it odd when you are being obtuse to the topic or inflammatory.

[Bang]

More power to em Larry. The R word can be their word, it doesn't need to be mine anymore. I'm a football fan, not an Indian.

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

You don't support it, except by supporting it.

 

Do you really think typing "the R Word" or not saying the name somehow erases the fact that you support the team completely in every single other way there is?

 

 

he R word. . give me a break. You want to do anything except wag your finger and pretend to be a 'football fan' who can't help but support a team who's very name offends him so much that he can't even TYPE it... then quit the team entirely.

A "football fan" can easily find football teams with long tradition and names that do not offend anyone.

Easily. i can think of 31 other options...  well 30 .. what with the Bills being the single most offensive name in all of sports.

You have absolutely no reason to be a fan of the Redskins at all. 

I don't see how you can justify it in any way. 

 

~Bang

[Burgold]

Yeah, you call it the R word or make "R" your symbol then you are basically declaring that you think it is a naughty word.

 

I think Chip had a good and funny point with the gay marriage thing. Mind you, that also has to do with word reinvention. Gay or homosexual has a much more clinical definition than it did 30, 40, or 50 years ago.  More to the point, I still want the detractors to do another poll. If you believe that Native Americans or a sizable proportion of Native Americans are offended then it would be pretty easy to prove. It'd also be relatively cheap.

 

It'd cost less than 5,000 bucks. Heck, I raised 4,000 to help publish my novel. You don't think that all the neighsayers could raise 5 or 10 k? Heck, the Oneida Casino owner could do it by himself.  There's only one reason they don't. There's only one reason that UnWise Mike and the Washington Post hasn't.  They don't want an answer. They want their way... or they want the controversy.  Possibly both.

 

I will tell you that if they did a poll and they found that 30% of Native Americans found the name offensive I'd switch sides. Heck, I might even switch at 25%.

 

The other issue I've been pondering is a different form of racism. We've all read accounts of Native Groups and tribal leaders backing the Redskins. We also know that they were not one nation nor were they one culture. That leads me to the thought that some groups may absolutely be offended by it or have negative historical associations while others haven't. Perhaps, the word has more weight in some regions than others? 

 

Is it racist to presume that all Native Americans are the same people? Why do we pretend they speak with a unified voice? Find one and they can represent all? It's lazy or dishonest... or racist. If you wanted to find about the truth about Japanese internment in WWII would you speak to a Korean?

[Major Harris]

I really don't get someone who wants to keep the name but get rid of the logo.

There's a reason the Chiefs aren't under the scrutiny the redskins are. Largely, the claim is that the name is offensive, not the logo.

I am pretty sure that if the media was attacking logos first (they're next), the Cleveland Indians would be first batter up.

Wanting to keep the name but ditch the logo pretty much pisses everyone off.

Edit: great post burgold

[Larry]

Just observing that me, personally, I'm getting really tired of seeing people ordering other people to either agree with them, or get out.

This isn't a Philly message board.