Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Y don't u concentrate on being an effective mod and let me be me

 

u can just figure there's a red x on your forehead lefty loony toon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predication. A clearly anti-name group will conduct a poll, artificially limit it and conduct it in a questionable manner, and get an answer they want and then tout that as "more accurate"....even though WAPOs looks pretty solid and they had no reason to benefit from the polls inevitable conclusion (quite the opposite given their editorial board)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've had thoughts on the subject that are similar.

I'm a Native American. (Citizen Potawatomi Nation).

BUT, I'm only 1/16 Native. I don't "look Indian". I've never lived among Natives. No one will ever call me "redskin" as a racial epitaph

I'm absolutely that there are bunches of Natives (for example, on reservations) whose life experience is vastly different from mine. I absolutely cannot claim to represent them or speak for them.

And I could certainly see the argument that their opinion on the subject should count more than mine.

So, just to invent a hypothetical, if there's a survey that says that a large chunk of Natives on reservations think the name is offensive? I'd certainly respect their feelings. (Even over mine).

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-the-washington-post-conducted-the-survey-on-the-redskins-name/2016/05/19/98c0a4ae-1b8c-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html

 

Q: How did the survey reach Native Americans living on reservations?

The survey used respondents’ Zip codes and the 2010 Census to identify whether their neighborhood included a federally recognized reservation or tribal land. Roughly 1 in 10 interviews were conducted among Native Americans who lived in Zip codes where at least 75 percent of land is on a reservation or tribal area, and another 10 percent live in Zip codes with at least some portion of tribal land. Final survey results were weighted to match census data indicating 20 percent of single-race Native Americans live in Zip codes with at least 75 percent reservation land, and 17 percent live in Zip codes containing at least some reservation land.

Frankly I'm stunned that the Post was honest and forthright in releasing this information. They had a very clear anti-name agenda, ran a valid poll with controls, got results that went completely against their agenda and backed the Annenberg poll findings, and they released this info anyway. Many outlets, in this day and age, would've buried this or ran new polls with altered questioning and parameters until they obtained desired results, or at least results they could manipulate. 

 

Kudos to the Post for showing integrity and publishing this. Takes a lot admit when you're wrong, especially to a large public audience. The reactions from those entrenched in their agenda still is amusing, but also sad. It's a shame they don't have the same integrity and can't admit they wrong. Just proves what many of us have said all along, which is this issue is not truly about Native Americans for them, but about political agendas and being right.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The articles dismissing the poll are starting to surface lol...

 

Sporting News:

 

"Walker, an enrolled citizen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, criticized how the poll was conducted and said the numbers don't add up to the publication's claim. 

 

"The numbers don't justify the salacious headlines," she told Omnisport. "The Washington Post poll surveyed just 504 people; that's .01 percent of the total U.S. Native population (estimated at 5.4 million). How is .01 percent representative of ANY population?"

 

(Yet another who has zero clue as to how scientific polls and surveys are conducted yet whose opinion is being given significant importance on the subject of scientific polls)

 

"Of the 504 surveyed, only 44 percent claimed to be enrolled in a Native American tribe. Walker said this is a big deal because "a lot of people are quick to claim Native heritage but are unwilling to claim the issues that go along with it."

 

(Yet of that 44% enrolled in a Native American tribe, a whopping 90% of them didn't find the term offensive...that part is left out of the SN article)

 

"Jennifer Falcon, a writer for Indian Country Today, agrees.

 

"The polling size is small and they didn't go out of their way to talk to Native tribal communities," she said in an email to Omnisport. "It feels like a major newspaper is telling us that Redskins is okay."

 

(Um, Jennifer?...That same major newspaper has been on your side for years, and has even stopped using the team's name in their editorials. Why the **** would they want to go out of their way to now tell everyone that "Redskins is okay"?)

 

"No matter how many polls, Redskin is a term rooted in racism and genocide."

 

(*sigh*...it's a sad state of affairs when Native American representatives feel emboldened to continue trotting out this tripe as if proven fact. We probably know more facts about the term 'redskin' than she does.)

 

"I think (less than half of respondents not being enrolled in a tribe) can be indicative of how skewed the poll is and raises a valid question of if they were really speaking to Indian Country."

 

(Why does this sound to me like, "If you talked to Blacks in the suburbs you aren't really talking to Blacks. Real Blacks are in the poverty-stricken inner city."...I've had my Black voice marginalized like that for decades, and it's always done by other Blacks.)

 

"The Post interviewed several Native Americans who said the word didn't bother them. In fact, 80 percent of those polled said they would not be offended if a NON-Native American person called them the slur."

 

(Did you catch that at the end?...80% did NOT say it wouldn't offend them if a non-NA called them "the slur"...they said it's not a slur to begin with, that's why it wouldn't bother them.)

 

 

**************

 

It's gonna require an enormous amount of flawed logic to spin this in any way other than a rebuke of the notion that 'Redskin' is an obvious offensive racial slur to Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading the comments on the washington post article is great.

 

people are so stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wise is freaking out on Twitter lol

 

Good lord, is he ever lol...He's panicking. He's retweeting everyone who says they're NA and find the word offensive, with the #IAmNativeIWasNotAsked hashtag on their tweets. Anyone who view this objectively can see how poorly this is gonna turn out for him, and why.

 

A hashtag movement isn't gonna negate the WP poll...it will instead make him (and anyone like him) look like they're grasping at straws.

Edited by Califan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wise is freaking out on Twitter lol

Good.

Go tweet this to him. :)

8829DB72-CAB6-4A8A-A2DB-A62591B358AC_zps

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins name, even if Indians aren’t

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/some-in-the-news-media-are-still-offended-by-redskins-name-even-if-indians-arent/2016/05/19/df69a0c6-1df4-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?tid=sm_tw_ps

 

UnWise Mike, an ESPN columnist, answered the question this way: “To me, this has never been a Native American issue. You don’t have to be Native American to be offended. I don’t like hearing the n-word even though some people in the African American community aren’t offended by it.”

 

basically that's it, right there. We're not offended with you, or for you. We're just offended because we are. I guess we're also offended BY you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins name, even if Indians aren’t

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/some-in-the-news-media-are-still-offended-by-redskins-name-even-if-indians-arent/2016/05/19/df69a0c6-1df4-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?tid=sm_tw_ps

 

UnWise Mike, an ESPN columnist, answered the question this way: “To me, this has never been a Native American issue. You don’t have to be Native American to be offended. I don’t like hearing the n-word even though some people in the African American community aren’t offended by it.”

 

basically that's it, right there. We're not offended with you, or for you. We're just offended because we are. I guess we're also offended BY you.

 

I guarantee you he was saying the exact opposite several years ago lol...that the only thing that mattered was that Native Americans were offended, so it should be considered offensive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mike, 

 

You sir are an idiot. Should have got your facts straight before making a conclusion and then sticking to your guns to the level of fault...then not having the stones to admit error thus we would all just forget it ever happened. At this point you are trying to commit career suicide. The folks you had on your side are starting to look at you a little cross now. Step away from the fight you will certainly continue to lose. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1) You can't get 9-10 Americans to agree on anything. I don't care what the subject.. only 7-10 Americans like chocolate for pete sake.. Only 4-10 Americans can tell you the historical significance of Pearl Harbor. 9-10 American Indians not being offended by the Redskins Name is a slam dunk...

Now having said that.. I don't know if it matters. The FTC has already labeled the name offensive and that was decades ago. That's the problem. They won't allow the name to be trademarked. Unless that can be reversed then Snyder is out huge money in merchandising. Likewise that's admissible in the upcoming court case that the name is offensive. We have no hope of changing that ruling before the next court case comes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is some subtext to the poll results.  Along the lines of "I'm no wilting whimpering wimp..."

 

 

 

===============================================

 

 

Professor,

 

All I've seen of your posting before this thread was some pretty likable takes in the Stadium.  C'mon man, don't be this:

 

 

 

 

 

_zpsavcxmn0y.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

velocet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is more arrogant?

Telling someone they shouldn't be offended

or

telling someone they Should be offended

or the new one..

It doesn't matter IF they are offended or not....

This society of self righteous do gooders and the morally superior really chap my cookies.

HTTR

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u can just figure there's a red x on your forehead lefty loony toon.

Is this modspeak for "i can ban your ass right now if i wanted to"?

If you strike me down, it will only make me stronger.

Edited by Major Harris
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Syder really wants to honor Native America - start winning!

I do believe he's trying...Scot's taking care of business, OTAs and training camp will prove it,...but there's always the nutbag injury that usually occurs.  That's what I'm hoping against. 

 

We're movin' up.  I have faith.  (It may hurt a lot, but I have it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The articles dismissing the poll are starting to surface lol...

 

"Of the 504 surveyed, only 44 percent claimed to be enrolled in a Native American tribe. Walker said this is a big deal because "a lot of people are quick to claim Native heritage but are unwilling to claim the issues that go along with it."

 

(Yet of that 44% enrolled in a Native American tribe, a whopping 90% of them didn't find the term offensive...that part is left out of the SN article)

Yeah, the fact that more than half of their sample were "Natives who are not part of any tribe" really jumped out at me, too. Caused a serious "WTF", on my part. But then I saw that, even if you threw out that half, the results stand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/ Top video this morning is of Jalen Rose and this dude named Jacoby talking about the name.  I definitely know who Jalen Rose is, this Jacoby guy I'm not sure.  Anyway Jacoby has his own show with Jalen so that must mean someone, somewhere puts some sort of stock into whatever this guy has to say.  So Jacoby just blatantly disagrees with it in the matter that most people still are.  

 

"This piece does not change my opinion about the Washington football team's nickname.  I still think it needs to be changed."  

 

I encourage all of you guys today to start using this (lack of) logic throughout your day today to see where it gets you.  

 

Boss:  "I'm going to need those files taken care of by close of business today, our client is waiting."

 

You:  "This piece of information does not change my opinion about when the files should be done.  I still think I can get them to you by 10 am on Monday."

 

 

 

News Reporter:  "...and Donald Trump has secured the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential race...."

 

You:  "This piece of information does not change my opinion about Donald Trump.  I still think he's a gaping asshole and there's no way he's got the nomination, even though results point to the contrary."

 

 

 

Friend:  "The sky is blue"

 

You:  "This piece of information doesn't change my opinion about the color of the sky.  I still think it's a nice shade of green."

 

 

 

7-11 clerk:  "Sorry, the you didn't win the lottery today."

 

You:  "This piece of information about my lottery ticket not being the winner doesn't change my opinion about winning the lottery.  I still think I should have won."

Edited by Spaceman Spiff
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Oh of course it is.  I actually meant to say in my post, that just because I don't hear it all the time, doesn't mean that it isn't used.  I DO realize that.  I'm just not sure that out of all the pejoratives directed at Native Americans, I don't think "Redskin" is the most prevalent one used.  I've heard "chief" used more than "Redskin." Actually, I hear the N-word dropped WAY too much not only by non African-Americans, but African-Americans themselves and A LOT more than I hear Redskins.  In fact, I only hear Redskin mentioned when talking about our football team.

Edited by pjfootballer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now having said that.. I don't know if it matters. The FTC has already labeled the name offensive and that was decades ago. That's the problem. They won't allow the name to be trademarked. Unless that can be reversed then Snyder is out huge money in merchandising. Likewise that's admissible in the upcoming court case that the name is offensive. We have no hope of changing that ruling before the next court case comes around.

 

1) The FTC can't stop the name from being trademarked, it can only keep the name from receiving the additional federal rights associated with being trademarked.

 

2) Snyder isn't out huge money in the slightest. The Redskins still hold legal, enforceable rights to the name "Redskins". The name is still trademarked on the state level and the team also has common law trademark protections. Anyone making knock-off Skins apparel will need to have a huge amount of legal resources to adequately fight against the Redskins and the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guarantee you he was saying the exact opposite several years ago lol...that the only thing that mattered was that Native Americans were offended, so it should be considered offensive.

 

I was thinking about this more last night. So, if non-Seminoles (Like Wise) are offended by the name being used for a football team, and having a white kid dress up like one with his worse and spear. That's enough?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being in Atlanta, I very rarely even see someone that I could identify as "NA".  "Very rarely" isn't even applicable. 

But I can hear the N word every other second if I chose to...I LIVE IN ATLANTA. 

 

You think I would walk up to either ethnicity, and have a conversation about either a "Redskins" name (to the NA), or the N word (to a black person) and be taken seriously?  (even tho I'm an Ice-T fan, and know "Straight Up N***a" backwards & forwards, understand everything, and know why he wrote that song?)~one former co-worker said I was the coolest white person he'd ever worked with, because I knew that song, and rapped it with him...~ those days are long gone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polls should not tell you what you think of something. Make up your own mind. If you didnt have a problem with the name before and didnt think it was a slur, this poll shouldnt change your mind, and vice versa.

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.