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

[Mr. Sinister]

I've always found it funny how certain people choose to exhibit their "Southern Pride."

 

Let me know how "Tired" and "Baseless" this is:

 

 

 

I don't need to tell you what the **** to think. They tell me. I never said everyone who flies it is a white supremacist.l I said that when I SEE that flag waving, THAT'S what comes to mind. If that's not your intention, then again, don't ****ing feign ignorance and pretend that the evil goverment is behind all of it, planting falsehoods in everyones mind, pretending that people weren't lynched, beaten, burned, enslaved, and segregated against all while the perpetrators proudly flew that flag

 

You wanna set the record straight? Go right ahead, but don't ****ing pretend like you have anymore of a right to tell me what that flag stands for than I do. You don't like the negative attention that it receives? Then what are you doing about it? Are you protesting against all of these groups, to let them know that they're giving your precious flag a bad name? Or are you simply sitting back, with your head up your ass, essentially saying "It's not my problem?" Because it sure as hell is your problem.

 

So educate me. Tell me what it stands for to you. Tell me more about how I should disregard the groups of people (who intend ill will towards everyone but white Christians) who fly, and have flown it. I'm not an authority on it, and neither the hell are you. You may not like it, but like I said, I doubt many people care about your feelings, especially since you continue to cop the attitude that everyone who has an issue with that flag is brainwashed. I am from Florida. My former sister in law is black and from NC. Don't try and play that **** with me. You don't get to tell people that they shouldn't view that flag in a negative light, considering this country's history. The fact that you don't get that, and choose to spin it, only makes you look like a ****ing moron. You don't like the way it's "Portrayed?" YOU do something about it then. Maybe YOU can take a page from the Oneida tribes playbook and talk about how those jackasses have ruined your flag. Start a radio ad.

[Predicto]

by Vinnieisthat you

 

First, I'm not on some crusade to convince ignorant people here on the matter. Second, I didn't even mention what I think it represents so not sure why you're referencing your lame good ole boy stereotype. I was just pointing out a BS post because the same cliched lines (not even arguments) are repeated over and over, and opinions are presented as facts. My whole points was (and still is), Who the hell are you to make definitive claims on what a flag represents, and what people are thinking inside their heads when they rep it?  

 

 

I'm a former Virginian who used to have that flag flying in the back window of my car until my black friends told me what it mean to them and I realized that I was sending out crappy signals EVEN THOUGH I DIDN"T INTEND TO.  

 

In theory, I could wave around a Nazi flag with no bad intentions, but I should be smart enough to realize what signals I actually am sending out to the world when I do it.

 

 

 

The blonde chick at Ole Miss with the rebel battle flag on her Macbook is not dreaming of bringing back slavery, nor is she feigning ignorance. The rebel flag is repped hard in the South. You're telling me everyone who reps it is a white supremacist or pro-slavery?   

 

 

Nope.  I'm telling you that the Confederate Battle Flag it is a terrible choice for "repping your Southern Heritage" because it comes with a huge amount of baggage.  It only became a famous symbol at all because it was the acknowledged symbol of opposition to integration during the 1950s and 60s.  It was adopted at the Dixiecrat Convention of 1948, which was all about opposition to civil rights, and then that flag suddenly started to appear on the roofs of Southern State Capitals and in southern white folks' front yards ever since.   

 

 

 

 

Like I told the last guy, I don't care what you think it represents. You are not the authority on it, and have no ties to it. I'm sure al-qaeda thinks the American flag represents oppression, violence, satan, and other bad things. Doesn't mean they're right, just means they're idiots with misinformed opinions. People that are gullible, like yourself, eat up whatever's told to them and hold onto to ideas they grasped earlier in life.

 

You aren't even putting forth an argument, you're just repeating tired lines. Tired lines and baseless arguments that kids in middle school social studies class use when discussing the topic. "It's bad because it means slavery!!!" LOL.

 

 

 

No, historically it mostly means opposition to the civil rights movement.   Tell us all about how we aren't the "authority" on it, because I have actually researched this subject in detail.  

[Larry]

Might I suggest that this is not the Confederate Flag thread? 

[Predicto]

Might I suggest that this is not the Confederate Flag thread? 

 

 

True.  Of course, some would say that analogy could be drawn between the two situations.  It appears to me to be a a reasonable discussion point (if kept civilized and understated).     

[RFKFedEx]

True.  Of course, some would say that analogy could be drawn between the two situations.  It appears to me to be a a reasonable discussion point (if kept civilized and understated).     

Agreed.

 

The Confederate flag was widely considered a harmless cultural icon just a few decades ago. Then we learned better as a society. If anyone has doubt as to just how prominent a presence that flag once had in football (within most of our lifetimes), I recommend Youtube highlights of Herschel Walker from his days at Georgia. Every TD Walker scored, numerous stars and bars could be seen waving in the endzones. That was only a little more than 30 years ago. Nobody waves that flag at SEC games today bc people have become smarter.

 

Native American themes and imagery are going down that same path, but pro sports have been slower to adapt.

 

Anyone notice our band's unis this year?

[Bang]

Agreed.

 

The Confederate flag was widely considered a harmless cultural icon just a few decades ago. Then we learned better as a society. If anyone has doubt as to just how prominent a presence that flag once had in football (within most of our lifetimes), I recommend Youtube highlights of Herschel Walker from his days at Georgia. Every TD Walker scored, numerous stars and bars could be seen waving in the endzones. That was only a little more than 30 years ago. Nobody waves that flag at SEC games today bc people have become smarter.

 

Native American themes and imagery are going down that same path, but pro sports have been slower to adapt.

 

Anyone notice our band's unis this year?

 

I do seem to recall seeing a lot of old newsreels of all those o' tymie darkies talking about how much pride they felt  in the ol' stars and bars.

 

The fallacy of this argument is that you could NOT go find a whole portion of any segment of black people who didn't feel the offense at that flag.

Black people didn't have to be convinced.

Whites did.

 

This is the opposite.

In this case, a large portion of the people who are supposed to be offended are not, but we've been through all of that only about a hundred times before, so there's no sense in repeating it.

They need convincing, apparently.

 

if you want to say that society had to be changed to recognize the inherent offensiveness of the rebel flag, then you should be accurate, and say white society had to be taught what black society already widely felt, and even though I'd have no way of knowing, I'd bank that probably upwards of 95% or more of all black Americans understood the offensive if not downright threatening implications of that flag throughout 20th century America.

 

There's a major difference.

 

~Bang

[Spearfeather]

 

 

There's a major difference.

 

~Bang

 

They know that.

 

They don't care.

 

" Anything for a cause "

[Major Harris]

I always had read that this issue wasn't brought up until 1992.....

That was the first legal action....but the national council of American Indians started a public advocacy campaign against the name as early as 1968, the year after the name was trademarked.

Learning that does make me think a bit about my position.

Put a potato on the helmet.

[Larry]

I always had read that this issue wasn't brought up until 1992.....

That was the first legal action....but the national council of American Indians started a public advocacy campaign against the name as early as 1968, the year after the name was trademarked.

Learning that does make me think a bit about my position.

Now, that's some new information that I hadn't heard. Not sure how important it is, but I'm glad somebody found it.

[Major Harris]

Now, that's some new information that I hadn't heard. Not sure how important it is, but I'm glad somebody found it.

My opinion is that it is very important. Our whole argument is that it is not offensive to most native Americans and all this is much ado about nothing brought on by 7 Indians and a bunch of white folks almost 50 years after the name was formed. The ncai found it offensive in 1968.

The only thing that discredits it in my mind is if the ncai position was that of a few people overriding a more prominent opinion of the membership, and I have no way of knowing that.

[Larry]

Our whole argument is that it is not offensive to most native Americans and all this is much ado about nothing brought on by 7 Indians and a bunch of white folks almost 50 years after the name was formed.

Uh, that may be your whole argument.

Me, by far the most telling and important fact, is the fact that the name is not offensive.

(And I'll point out that the Redskins became Redskins in 1933.)

[Major Harris]

Uh, that may be your whole argument.Me, by far the most telling and important fact, is the fact that the name is not offensive.(And I'll point out that the Redskins became Redskins in 1933.)

Not offensive to whom? To you?

That's my point, native Americans found it offensive in 1968.

I am not on the side saying it needs to change, but that is important, IMO.

As far as whose argument is what, I haven't a clue what you mean. I said our whole argument is that the name isn't offensive. Then you say that's my argument, yours is that the name isn't offensive. What gives dude

[TD_washingtonredskins]

To mince words a bit, some Native Americans found it offensive in 1968, 35 years after it was used. I know you acknowledged this previously, but we have to continue to state just facts.

 

Believe me, I'm on the "If more NAs say that they're offended, we need to consider changing the name" train, but I would understand the NFL and the organization needing proof that it's more than a very small minority.

[Major Harris]

To mince words a bit, some Native Americans found it offensive in 1968, 35 years after it was used. I know you acknowledged this previously, but we have to continue to state just facts.

Believe me, I'm on the "If more NAs say that they're offended, we need to consider changing the name" train, but I would understand the NFL and the organization needing proof that it's more than a very small minority.

I agree with everything you said.

I would be interested to see a more recent poll. The annenberg poll was a decade ago.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I agree with everything you said.

I would be interested to see a more recent poll. The annenberg poll was a decade ago.

 

I would be interested in that too. You would think that, at some point, someone would just want to put this issue to bed. The problem is who decides the cut-off? Is 15% high enough? 25%? Sticky situation!

[Bang]

Well, the ones who would benefit from the poll showing differently would be the offended.

But they don't bother taking a poll..  or they find out in feelers that their poll will not support their assertion.

 

Facts don't help their cause, so they're avoided.

 

i don't know what % would be "required"..  that word isn't even appropriate.

I know it's more than I can count on two hands, though.

 

~Bang

[grego]

I agree with everything you said.

I would be interested to see a more recent poll. The annenberg poll was a decade ago.

 

 

not slamming you, major, but i dont get this argument. the team has been the 'redskins' for 80 years. native americans have been here forever(ish). 

 

why should the poll be significantly different 10 years later? did they just figure out theres a professional football team named 'redskins' and decide they are offended (even though some have named their own high school teams 'redskins')?

 

the poll among white people would be different, i'm sure, because so many white people are misinformed, such as the former oakland raiders exec who was just on the junkies. 

 

this lady says the origin of the term 'redskin' is a slur, and not one junkie corrected her. not even that idiot bickell, whose actually supposed to be a fan of the team and so anti-name change.

 

so harjos wrong about the name but her voice gets louder. this lady is wrong about the name, but the tide keeps growing. 

 

what the hell is wrong with people?

[Larry]

Not offensive to whom? To you?

To 90% of Native Americans, and 80% of all Americans.

Remember? Those pesky facts that have been posted for years?

 

That's my point, native Americans found it offensive in 1968.

 

 

At least one Native American found it offensive in 68. 

 

I'm not aware of anybody asking Native Americans, as a whole, what their opinion was in 68. 

 

(You know, that's what the phrase "native Americans found it offensive" means.  It doesn't mean "at least two of them did"  That's what the phrase "some native Americans found it offensive" means.) 

 

It seems unlikely, to me, that a majority of them were offended in 68, and then they just decided not to be offended any more. 

 

But if you want to try to make that case, please, feel free to present your support. 

[Larry]

I would be interested to see a more recent poll. The annenberg poll was a decade ago.

Wouldn't mind it, myself.

 

I reserve the right to point out, however, if people are trying to skew the results. Say, by altering the question. Annenberg asked people if they, personally, were offended. Something which I think is both relevant to the discussion, and pretty tough to challenge or refute.

If somebody wants to ask people "Do you think other people are offended", then you aren't surveying whether the term is offensive any more, you're surveying people as to their opinions about other people's opinions.

OTOH, if somebody wants to establish, say, tougher standards as to whose vote counts, so to speak? Limit the survey to only people who are on registered tribal rolls? Or maybe only people living on reservations? I could see something like that being reasonable things to look at.

 

Frankly, I'd be amazed if all of the claims that it's offensive, and all of the false history about it's origins, and everything, if the "percent offended" hasn't increased.  Media has the power to change people's opinions. 

 

My gut says that, if the survey were done today, the percent offended would have gone from 9% to at least 12%. 

 

In fact, personally, I'd say that if a modern survey were done today (and done correctly), and the "percent offended" has risen to 20%, then I'll say it's time to change the name.  IMO, if public opinion has changed that much, then the PR war has been lost, and it's time to cut the losses. 

 

I'll also point out, though, that I can only think of one reason why Harjo et all haven't done such a poll. (After all, their entire schtick consists of claiming that something is offensive. How come they've never even attempted to show that it's actually offensive?)

It's because

 

1) They already know what such a poll would show.

2) It will show that their claims are false.

3) And they don't care.

[grego]

 

Frankly, I'd be amazed if all of the claims that it's offensive, and all of the false history about it's origins, and everything, if the "percent offended" hasn't increased.  Media has the power to change people's opinions. 

 

My gut says that, if the survey were done today, the percent offended would have gone from 9% to at least 12%. 

 

In fact, personally, I'd say that if a modern survey were done today (and done correctly), and the "percent offended" has risen to 20%, then I'll say it's time to change the name.  IMO, if public opinion has changed that much, then the PR war has been lost, and it's time to cut the losses. 

 

I'll also point out, though, that I can only think of one reason why Harjo et all haven't done such a poll. (After all, their entire schtick consists of claiming that something is offensive. How come they've never even attempted to show that it's actually offensive?)

 

 

 

agree with your last paragraph. 

 

on a related note, it drives me crazy that, although im sure public opinion is turning in favor of a name change, people are offended for the 'wrong' reasons. their facts are wrong. and they are preaching change based on factual error.

 

you hear these people talk and demand change, and when asked what their problem is (which is rare enough- god forbid they have to expain themselves), they talk about made up facts. 

 

reilly writes a piece last week containing more facts than any national column written on the subject and gets skewered for it. but nobody can actually refute his facts. they just keep on with their fantasies. 

 

i'm just not ok with public opinion swaying, and then the redskins changing their name- based on peoples made up crusades.

[thebluefood]

I agree with everything you said.

I would be interested to see a more recent poll. The annenberg poll was a decade ago.

Couldn't agree more. I think a respected, non-partisan pollster needs to do another survey on the issue. Yes, the survey we often cite is nearly a decade old (a fact those for the name change won't let me forget), but I think it's only reasonable to do a new survey and get some updated information on it. If a good chunk of the Native American population (for me, the cut off is 33% percent, but that's just my opinion) is offended by the name, then by all means, let's change it. 

[Larry]

on a related note, it drives me crazy that, although im sure public opinion is turning in favor of a name change, people are offended for the 'wrong' reasons. their facts are wrong. and they are preaching change based on factual error.

Yeah, IF the percent offended has grown that much, then my personal opinion will be that the media successfully lied to their audience.

BUT, if people are offended, then they're offended. Whether I think they have a legit reason or not

IMO, if people are offended, then that's all that's important.

[Major Harris]

To 90% of Native Americans, and 80% of all Americans.Remember? Those pesky facts that have been posted for years?

One poll makes it a fact. Gotcha. Keep in mind, I am not advocating change, just that I am not sure it's not worth looking into.

At least one Native American found it offensive in 68.

Dude, it was the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NATIVE AMERICANS. I am pretty sure you would take glaa for their word if this was a gay issue.

You have to be the grand champion hair splitter. Ok, the ncai isn't ALL native Americans

[grego]

IMO, if people are offended, then that's all that's important.

 

i liken it to something like this- lets say a group of people are protesting Target. when asked, they say they are protesting because Target buys 90% of their products from a company that employs labor from sweatshops, where workers are forced to work 18 hour days and paid pennies, etc. 

 

then it turns out that Target, in fact, does not buy their goods from such a company. the protestors were protesting something that didnt exist. 

 

i think it does matter. very much so. 

 

now, if someone says they are offended by the name and/or logo because it portrays indians as primitive killers or something like that, thats certainly debatable. but, protesting the name because its a 'slur' or the name comes from scalps, well thats factually incorrect and the team shouldnt kowtow to that. 

[Larry]

i liken it to something like this- lets say a group of people are protesting Target. when asked, they say they are protesting because Target buys 90% of their products from a company that employs labor from sweatshops, where workers are forced to work 18 hour days and paid pennies, etc.

then it turns out that Target, in fact, does not buy their goods from such a company. the protestors were protesting something that didnt exist.

i think it does matter. very much so.

now, if someone says they are offended by the name and/or logo because it portrays indians as primitive killers or something like that, thats certainly debatable. but, protesting the name because its a 'slur' or the name comes from scalps, well thats factually incorrect and the team shouldnt kowtow to that.

My point is that if the name offends people, then it offends them. Whether they have a good reason or not.

You can try to convince them not to be offended. To change their mind.

But if they're offended, if their feelings are hurt, then that's real.