Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Alaskins

Recommended Posts

Did people read the verbatims by respondants?

This is an absolute stunner to me that after the millions spent against the name the last 3 years, attitude remain unchanged by Native Americans. Overwhelming

I think the majority of actual Native Americans probably see the bigger issues facing their society than a name that they can't reach true consensus on whether or not it is offensive.

You start to turn the tide of public opinion away from your favor when all you seem to be concerned about is a team name, not what actually plagues NA's overall.

Im sure the ones without even running water feel good that all these well to do white liberals are fighting hard to improve their living situations by championing a team name change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring me the head of John ****ing Oliver.

 

 

I think the majority of actual Native Americans probably see the bigger issues facing their society than a name that they can't reach true consensus on whether or not it is offensive.
 

 

These communities are faced with poverty, drug abuse, crime and other real issues, so let's help by beating up on a sports team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team shouldn't say anything more then what was said today and must pivot to insist that "Redskins" specifically refers to the NFL team located in the Washington DC area. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Changing the logo from the current to the old school '70s R would be helpful. And I think fans should avoid wearing the Native American painting and head dresses to the games

 

I agree with you that the team should let the results speak for themselves and pretty much avoid the topic. As for changing the logo, I wouldn't divorce myself from Native American imagery. If the name is deemed non-offensive, what exactly are you gaining by changing the logo? If it were cartoony like the Cleveland Indians logo, then I think there would be an issue. 

 

I would honestly go back to the arrow or feather before a "R" logo. If the majority of Native Americans feel honored, then I wouldn't deviate drastically from what you've been doing to make them feel honored. I've been saying for years that the only opinion I personally care about is that of the Native Americans themselves. To me, something like this should essentially put the issue to bed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Managing Editor of Pro Football Talk:

 

Michael David Smith ‏@MichaelDavSmith  1h

I've been too lazy to look into the actual facts, as well as the feelings of actual native americans, regarding this issue. I opened my web browser this morning, and this article with this new poll was actually right there in front of me. So I read it. Doesn't make me any less lazy- only less uninformed..... This poll is making me reconsider.

 

 

 

fixed

 

 

That said, just because Native American's don't think it's offensive doesn't mean that it isn't offensive.

 

 

 

explain, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, just because Native American's don't think it's offensive doesn't mean that it isn't offensive.

 

 

 

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

No wonder Gilligan never got off the island.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the logo... There is no way anyone without a serious bias looks at the Redskins logo and finds it insulting, disrespectful or hateful. I will grant that small group of people some leeway who have declared that no group of humans should be cast as a mascot. I don't buy it, but can respect it as long as they come out with equal fervor against the Vikings, Patriots, Fighting Irish, and every other group that humans have ever belonged to historically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the logo... There is no way anyone without a serious bias looks at the Redskins logo and finds it insulting, disrespectful or hateful. I will grant that small group of people some leeway who have declared that no group of humans should be cast as a mascot. I don't buy it, but can respect it as long as they come out with equal fervor against the Vikings, Patriots, Fighting Irish, and every other group that humans have ever belonged to historically.

This. Of all the logos, ours is probably the most classy and classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, one of the dumbest excuses for people dismissing the Annenberg poll was that "its irrelevant, because its *gasp* 10 years old!"

 

ridiculous.

 

glad to see its held up so I don't have to read any more of that drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, one of the dumbest excuses for people dismissing the Annenberg poll was that "its irrelevant, because its *gasp* 10 years old!"

 

ridiculous.

 

glad to see its held up so I don't have to read any more of that drivel.

 

To me it is stunning that in 10 years, and multiple campaigns, attitudes have not changed in the NA community 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

No wonder Gilligan never got off the island.

~Bang

Lol dude could make a coconut into a radio, but couldn't fix a hole in a boat...

To me it is stunning that in 10 years, and multiple campaigns, attitudes have not changed in the NA community

You mean the campaign headed up by the Native American who was put in charge of his tribe by the federal government, who owns a casino and is about to open another casino that honors a man who was very vocal about his hatred of Native Americans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about fans coming all dressed up like a 40's western. Never was a dress-up guy anyway.

 

We don't do the Tomahawk chop. We don't have a white kid dressed up like a Seminole on a horse and flaming spear. Our logo isn't a cartoon caricature. 

 

The quotes in there were so telling. If the name changed tomorrow, that doesn't help the Native American people in this country who need it. It doesn't help put their kids into college or food on their table because they not have skills for a better job. 

 

Same goes for Ms. Blackhorse. Maybe her influence would be better spent trying to get financial and social aid for these people who seem to not agree with her, tribal "leaders" or a bunch of old white guys who thinks they know what's best for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it is stunning that in 10 years, and multiple campaigns, attitudes have not changed in the NA community 

 

 

I get that, but I think the minds being changed as a result of the publicity in recent years are people other than native americans - the bob costas of the world and the endless journalists, politician, public types who've had some kind of epiphany.

 

to me, I think its almost demeaning to think that native americans are somehow ignorant of the name of the football team. as such, I think they've very likely had opinions about it their whole lives.

 

theres a vocal minority of social justice warrior types among natives, but I think they're just that. it would appear that the rest of the native population sees this vocal minority the same way other ethnicities view their own versions of extremist SJW's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fixed

 

 

explain, please.

 

90% isn't 100%.  Math.

I get that, but I think the minds being changed as a result of the publicity in recent years are people other than native americans - the bob costas of the world and the endless journalists, politician, public types who've had some kind of epiphany.

 

to me, I think its almost demeaning to think that native americans are somehow ignorant of the name of the football team. as such, I think they've very likely had opinions about it their whole lives.

 

theres a vocal minority of social justice warrior types among natives, but I think they're just that. it would appear that the rest of the native population sees this vocal minority the same way other ethnicities view their own versions of extremist SJW's.

 

Honestly though you can't say that.

Native Americans have been so suppressed that they will do anything for their community at this point. 

See Indian Reservations turning into casinos all across this country.

And just like you said, it's about "football."  I've lived all up and down the east coast from Maryland to Florida and not once in my 48 years have I ever heard anyone call a Native American, "Redskin" as a pejorative.  I've heard "chief," "blanket ass," "squaw" or "savage", but the only time I've heard Redskin used is in old cowboy movies and in reference to our football team.

 

I'll quote Allen Iverson- "We talking about a football team.  A football team."

 

Now that's sketchy logic.

 

I don't hear people drop the N-word all the time but that doesn't mean it's lost it's sting.

On the logo... There is no way anyone without a serious bias looks at the Redskins logo and finds it insulting, disrespectful or hateful. I will grant that small group of people some leeway who have declared that no group of humans should be cast as a mascot. I don't buy it, but can respect it as long as they come out with equal fervor against the Vikings, Patriots, Fighting Irish, and every other group that humans have ever belonged to historically.

 

I agree.  People with half a brain wouldn't have a problem with the logo.  Unfortunately people without a brain have a voice in this country and move the meter.  See all Donald Trump supporters.

 

Also, I don't think deflecting or dragging another team down with you is helpful.  If you can't argue the sincerity of a name on its own merits then be done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% isn't 100%.  Math.

 

Honestly though you can't say that.

Native Americans have been so suppressed that they will do anything for their community at this point. 

See Indian Reservations turning into casinos all across this country.

 

ok, but by that logic, just one single person out of a population of one billion need be offended by something to have it be labeled 'offensive'.

 

not sure what you mean with the second statement as it relates to my post, but I'm multi tasking, so I could be missing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, but by that logic, just one single person out of a population of one billion need be offended by something to have it be labeled 'offensive'.

 

not sure what you mean with the second statement as it relates to my post, but I'm multi tasking, so I could be missing it

 

Not really.  I think 10% is a reasonable number.  .000000000000000000000000001% is not.

 

I may have missed your point too..if so I'm sorry.  Ultimately what I was saying is that the Native American's moral compass, as a community, is suspect because of the suppression they've dealt with.  That is obvious because they've resorted to throwing up casinos on their land, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.  I think 10% is a reasonable number.  .000000000000000000000000001% is not.

 

I may have missed your point too..if so I'm sorry.  Ultimately what I was saying is that the Native American's moral compass, as a community, is suspect because of the suppression they've dealt with.  That is obvious because they've resorted to throwing up casinos on their land, etc.

 

 

ok, but, then its just your subjective opinon. 10% is an arbitrary number. its reasonable to you, but I don't know how you can say definitively 'therefore its offensive'.

 

second part seems a tad offensive, imo. "the native americans moral compass is broken"? yikes.......

 

sounds like the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, but, then its just your subjective opinon. 10% is an arbitrary number. its reasonable to you, but I don't know how you can say definitively 'therefore its offensive'.

 

second part seems a tad offensive, imo. "the native americans moral compass is broken"? yikes.......

 

sounds like the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

 

10% was the number cited in the article.

As for the "soft bigotry"...I'm just speaking to what's constantly being reported about the native american people.  It's subjective to think their moral compass as a group is broken, that's fine, but there are some real metrics (casino's, alcoholism) that led me to that opinion.

Again, I'm part Cherokee and not proud of that statement but I feel like I'm just being honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the 504 in the survey override the Native Americans the do care about the name and are represented in the lawsuits and whatnot.  It's problematic for me to say "well, see, 450 something Native Americans in a survey are cool with it, so that's the end of it". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could certainly find 10% of the southern white population offended by the term "Yankee"

 

And they have every right to voice their opinion.  I'd submit that they won't get as far as a Redskin opponent because it doesn't relate to skin color.

I don't think the 504 in the survey override the Native Americans the do care about the name and are represented in the lawsuits and whatnot.  It's problematic for me to say "well, see, 450 something Native Americans in a survey are cool with it, so that's the end of it". 

 

Yeah because you'd be ignoring the 10%.  1 out of 10 people is enough to have a questioning attitude about anything.

Besides most people are followers by nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

second part seems a tad offensive, imo. "the native americans moral compass is broken"? yikes.......

The native Americans moral compass is too primitive and inferior to the white PC's moral compass.

They should recognize how lucky they are these white guys are here to decide what they should think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...