Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Absolutely. My gut is that less than 10% of people have an issue with our name. I also would guess that most Native Americans feel pride, not offense. The fact that majority NA schools adopt similar names supports my guesses.

 

However, I'm open-minded (or like to think that I am). If several tribes organized their thoughts and officially condemned the name (even if they didn't make up a majority) I would be fine with the NFL or organization entertaining the name change. If the numbers are growing and people are legitimately offended, of course we should consider it. I just want something more than UnWise Mike telling us that he thinks some NAs should be pissed.

 

Nice post, by the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clearly, i find alot of things interesting.

Anything to take your attention away from how we're playing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nice post, by the way!

 

 

thanks! i'm usually afraid i come across as a jerk :)

Anything to take your attention away from how we're playing. :)

 

 

its either this, or stabbing needles in my eyes. 

 

heres hoping for 2-3!

Edited by grego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either of them.

and yes, it is interesting considering the NCAI launched a public awareness campaign in 1968 against the name.

Actually they didn't launch this against the "name."  The campaign was launched against the use of any American Indian themed mascots.

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it Interesting to learn the Annenberg survey of 2004 asked respondents to self ID if they were Native. Roughly 8.5% of respondents claimed Native ethnicity, which is well above the actual percentage of the US population, esp. in the lower 48 states. Residents of Alaska and Hawaii were excluded from that survey.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

The only people they should ask, in my opinion, are those raised in Native American culture in addition to being at least 50% Native American. I can only speak for myself but as a Hispanic I don't think someone with a grandfather named Carlos that can't speak Spanish and has never lived in a Hispanic community should be representing me on surveys or anywhere else. I think that to represent it, you have to live it. Again that's just my view, I know things are done differently on this issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people they should ask, in my opinion, are those raised in Native American culture in addition to being at least 50% Native American. I can only speak for myself but as a Hispanic I don't think someone with a grandfather named Carlos that can't speak Spanish and has never lived in a Hispanic community should be representing me on surveys or anywhere else. I think that to represent it, you have to live it. Again that's just my view, I know things are done differently on this issue.

And I can understand that view, and see the validity of it.

But I expect the people yelling that "it's offensive", to . . .

1) Pick what standard they think qualifies as "their opinions should count, and nobody else's should"

2) Ask said people.

3) And be prepared to justify why they claim that this group, and only this group, should count.

If they want to claim, (to pull out a hypothetical) that only people currently living on a reservation should count, then I could see that as a reasonable selection criteria. I wouldn't mind seeing a survey of that. If they think that the standard should be "is listed on a tribal roll", I'm fine with that criteria.

If they just happen to pick the seven or however many plaintiffs on the lawsuit there are, then I'm going to ignore their "survey", because they cherry picked their data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure why changing the team name to Warriors or Braves (or anything else really) is so distasteful, especially if team colors/logo don't change. I guess the real question I have is, why is the name Redskins important to you? Me, I support the team because it's my hometown team, the name is irrelevant. We could be the slugs for all I care, I'd still point out how slugs often kill drunken cowboys. So what really does the name mean to you (I'm not looking for historic perspective, but personal history) and why is it so important to maintain this tradition. Not because I'm a basket weaving PC name changer, I'm just wondering what I'm missing here. I couldn't care less what the team logo/mascot is. I'm from here and I support here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been the Washington Redskins since 1937. In other words, the team has been here by that name for 76 years. In all that time people have been cheering for them, invested time and consideration into them. Is it really that difficult for some of you to understand why so many hold such importance in the name? 

 

Furthermore, not one person in here I believe has said that if the majority of Native Americans did find the name offensive that we should still keep it. However, what has been shown is a lot of evidence showing that the majority DO NOT find it offensive. But we see a minority of people, many not even Native American and many also citing factually incorrect evidence, clamoring for us to change the name. Pretty easy, with an understanding of the situation, to see why so many feel it is important to maintain the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/05/president-obama-id-think-about-changing-the-washington-redskins-name/

President Obama: ‘I’d think about changing’ the Washington Redskins’ name

 

President Obama said he would consider changing the name of the Washington Redskins because it offends Native Americans.

 

"If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team, even if they've had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I'd think about changing it," Obama said in an interview with the Associated Press published Saturday

Obama said he did not think the team meant offense by the name, which has been with the franchise since it was in Boston in 1933.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually sounds like a lot of you tailgaters in what he actually said

Team name not intended to be offensive

But If you Know it is offending a Sizable group of people then think about changing it

That's what most people in here say all the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been the Washington Redskins since 1937. In other words, the team has been here by that name for 76 years. In all that time people have been cheering for them, invested time and consideration into them. Is it really that difficult for some of you to understand why so many hold such importance in the name? 

 

ame.

Yeah it still is a little difficult for me to understand. We have invested ourselves in rooting for this team... Not for the word Redskin. But whatever, that horse is beaten flat now. HTTR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/markknoller

Pres Obama questions whether fan attachment to a team name "should override the real, legitimate concerns" some people have about it.

12:03 PM 


Actually sounds like a lot of you tailgaters in what he actually said

Team name not intended to be offensive
But If you Know it is offending a Sizable group of people then think about changing it

That's what most people in here say all the time

Except it seems he's already decided that it is (which most disagree with).

Hard to tell though, without the complete transcript.

 

 

 

 

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YVuzJg0K

Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins

 

President Barack Obama says he would "think about changing" the Washington Redskins' name if he owned the football team as he waded into the controversy involving a word that many consider offensive to Native Americans.

 

Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough reason to keep them in place.

 

"I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things," he said in the interview, which was conducted Friday.

 

An avid sports fan, Obama said he doesn't think Washington football fans are purposely trying to offend American Indians. "I don't want to detract from the wonderful Redskins fans that are here. They love their team and rightly so," he said.

 

But the president appeared to come down on the side of those who have sharply criticized the football team's name, noting that Indians "feel pretty strongly" about mascots and team names that depict negative stereotypes about their heritage.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the name controversy is petty but I don't think his answer is a big deal.  He did not call on Snyder to change the name, and I assume the only reason he weighed in at all was because he was asked.  If you look at  Drudge you would assume he is on a crusade to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we see a minority of people, many not even Native American and many also citing factually incorrect evidence, clamoring for us to change the name. Pretty easy, with an understanding of the situation, to see why so many feel it is important to maintain the name.

Correct.

I think its a common belief among pro name changers that those against the name change hold that position strictly out of selfish traditional reasons. You see it all the time- even in this thread - "what's the big deal? It's just a name"

While a agree that keeping a name that is proven to be offensive just because of tradition is wrong , I will not apologize for questioning the actual offensiveness of the word.

One columnist- Reilly - writes an article questioning the real extent of it being offensive and he gets crushed. One person said he hoped he would kill himself. For pointing out that, at the very least, that many native Americans embrace the term and are not offended.

As elk correctly pointed out, the most vocal name changers are factually incorrect in their very reason for being offended. A case of offense built on a non existent fact. Where else would this kind of nonsense be allowed to continue completely - outside of one columnist- unchallenged?!

The reason many are not willing to change the name goes far beyond tradition. Some of us just have the audacity to ask questions. Even if people would rather we shut up and did what we're told.

Edited by grego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

words are arbitrary so I don't understand extreme positions on either side of the debate. I do think the name isn't meant to be racist, but it is somewhat offensive. I don't root for the redskins because they are the redskins, I root for them because they rep. the DMV. If they were to change it, I probably wouldn't give a damn so long as the name they changed it to wasn't something stupid. 

 

hypothetically, if the redskins moved to another city, and DC was given another franchise...where would allegiances lay? I'm somewhat different to the name "redskins" only because its the name of "our" citys team. I think I would bash the name from the outside looking in. 

 

But yeah, Obama probably should worry himself over some other things then polarizing nature of the redskins name/mascot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really take it as him saying he wants the name changed.  I think he took a middle-of-the-road stance.  Not really coming out for or against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from upstate NY. The Oneidas are really pushing this with our local media. I am not sure if anyone has posted this - but they are planning to attend the NFL fall meeting insisting on a name change- tomorrow 10-7-13. They have set up a website, too. Not sure how much attention they are going to draw.....or should draw. I have been boycotting all of their business ventures when I realized they had taken a stand on this. (Gas & Convenience Stores, Casino, concerts, golfing, lodging, camping).  On one hand I would like to send them a VERY polite and kindly worded letter letting them know what "Redskin" means to me and include my chopped up Turning Stone Casino card. On the other hand, I don't want to draw attention or lend any more credence or ammunition to this.

 

Considering the current condition of Washington, and on reservations across the US...an unrelated tribe from northern New York and a couple of congresswomen decide to concentrate on this in the nations capital? 

 

WHAT: U.S. lawmakers, Native American leaders, public health professionals

and student activists will be among those gathering at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in

Washington, DC to discuss the growing Change the Mascot movement. The event

will take place at the same location as the NFL Fall League Meeting.

WHERE: Ritz-Carlton Georgetown, 3100 South Street, N.W., Washington, DC

2007. The conference will take place in the Fahrenheit Ballroom

WHEN: 11:00 a.m. Eastern, Monday, October 7th

http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/releases/Opponents-of-Racist-Washington-Football-Mascot-to-Hold-Event-On-Site-at-NFL-Fall-League-Meeting-226296481.html

 

edited to remove some seriously whiney bits.

Edited by 44aDieselGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44, some people said to be representing the Oneidas, protested the redskins- packers game a few weeks ago.

It was being reported beforehand as a big deal- google it send you can see the publicity it got in the days before the game.

9 people showed up.

Edited by grego

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.