Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

What I love about this poll is how it torpedoes so many logically flawed and intellectually lazy arguments for changing the name.
 
 
"It doesn't matter if YOU think it's offensive, it only matters if NAs think it's offensive, that's why the name should be changed!!"
 
 
1p0DtU.gif
 
 
 
 
 
"'Redskin' is the most offensive thing you can call a Native American!"
 
 
_vWuot.gif
 
 
 
 
 
 
"You wouldn't go up to a Native American and call him a 'redskin', they would be furious!"
 

Lgd5-k.gif




 
"The Annenberg poll was severely flawed, REAL Indians would show that they find the team name offensive!!"


UJsytUn.gif

 

 

 

 

I have yet to hear one single intelligent and legitimate argument for dismissing the poll results as irrelevant...

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I suspect it's more a case of "Yeah, it's a very insulting thing, to call a NATIVE that. But it's not insulting to call a FOOTBALL TEAM that".

(I suspect that's also why 21% said that "redskin" was offensive, but only 9% said the name of the football team was).

 

 

 

Apparently, that's not even true, for a large majority of NA.

 

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.

 

Edited by Spearfeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of name defenders on this board stated repeatedly that if a new poll came out that demonstrated more NA's were offended than prior poll, they would change their stance. Respectable posters that were sincere. Seems like the name changers are as thin as paper and just the opposite.

 

Most of the media basically stating 'I don't care what 90% of NA's think, the name should be changed. . . . . . just because'

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of name defenders on this board stated repeatedly that if a new poll came out that demonstrated more NA's were offended than prior poll, they would change their stance. Respectable posters that were sincere. Seems like the name changers are as thin as paper and just the opposite.

 

Most of the media basically stating 'I don't care what 90% of NA's think, the name should be changed. . . . . . just because'

Well to be fair, our sincerity has not yet really been tested in the same way. I agree with you that a lot of us pro name folks including me would change our tune should the evidence really come forth, but it never has... so we don't really know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, our sincerity has not yet really been tested in the same way. I agree with you that a lot of us pro name folks including me would change our tune should the evidence really come forth, but it never has... so we don't really know.

 

True, but just judging by the tones of each side's arguments, I'd feel comfortable making a futures bet that the name defenders in this thread would be stand up compared to some poster here (Professor/Wise) and the rest of the media.

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another "name-changer" media member who, to his credit, acknowledges that some of his arguments seem to have taken a serious hit with this poll:

 

 

 

1. I hear lots of name-changers dimissing the poll results by saying, “It’s just one poll.” True enough, but it’s one more than we had a week ago. For more than a decade now we’ve been saying that the 2004 Annenburg poll was out of date and that we needed new data in light of the renewed public debate on the topic. Well, we now have that new data, and it’s powerful. Is it the last word? No. But it can’t and shouldn’t be dismissed with a cavalier wave of the hand simply because it’s “just one poll.”

 

2. Many name-changers and Native American activists have attacked the poll’s credibility by questioning its methodology. Their biggest gripe is that more than half of the poll respondents were simply “self-identified” Native Americans rather than registered members of tribes.

 

This argument may have some merit in a vacuum, but I don’t find it convincing regarding this poll. According to the Post, the results were remarkably consistent among tribal and non-tribal members (and among virtually every other demographic sub-grouping among the respondents). For example, on the question, “As a Native American, do you find that name [Redskins] offensive, or doesn’t it bother you?,” 90% of tribal members said it didn’t bother them; for non-tribal members, the number was also 90%.

 

Moreover, if the poll had only included tribal members, there would no doubt be people saying that non-tribals also deserved to be included. The reality is that there is no perfect sampling for any poll, especially for something like racial or ethnic identity. In this case, however, it appears that weighting the demographics one way or another would not have mattered, because the results were so consistent across the various demographic groups.

 

4. For me, the single most surprising revelation in the poll was the response to the question, “If a NON-Native American person called you a Redskin, would you be personally offended, or not?” Overall, 80% of respondents said they would not be offended. Once again, the numbers were remarkably similar across all demographic breakdowns.

 

For name-changers, myself included, who’ve long said, “If you think there’s nothing wrong with the word ‘redskin,’ just try walking onto a reservation and saying that,” this poll data is a powerful rebuke. Granted, the 20% who would be offended shouldn’t be ignored (and I wouldn’t recommend actually walking onto a reservation giving “redskin” a test drive, since you’d still have a one-in-five chance of pissing somebody off), but I can’t imagine any name-changer thought that number would be so low.

 

Language evolves, and this term appears to be evolving. Simply referring to “redskin” as “a dictionary-defined slur” — a talking point that many name-changers trotted out in response to the poll — feels willful in the face of this polling data. Remember, dictionary entries change over time, too, and this one may have to be revised if the overwhelming majority of Native Americans don’t have a problem with the word. (As a few writers have suggested, it may simply be that the inherently high profile of an NFL team has overwhelmed and outweighed any other context for the word “redskins.” When most people hear it, they now think of the football team, period.)

 

For the past several years I’ve declined to refer to the ’Skins by their full name. Will I now start using the full name? I’m not there yet, for reasons I’ll get to. Still, this poll question was a serious eye-opener.

 

 

http://www.uni-watch.com/2016/05/23/some-thoughts-on-the-wapos-redskins-poll/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really give much creedence to the 'call a NA a redskin to their face' argument.

 

I wouldn't feel comfortable calling the person Redskin, Native American, Indian or anything outside of their tribal delegation or name. If I was friends with the person, I'd easily use the term Indian, Redskin (not really because I never use the term, but for arguments sake) or Native American.

 

Nothing for nothing, I always felt the name was actually cool. I like to think my opinion matters because it seems the only peoples opinions that count anymore anyway are non-NA's

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess. I mentally and verbally think of them as "Indians". That's the term I labeled them with, when I was a child.
 

(I made a conscious effort, when I began seeing a lot of people from India, to label those people as "Hindu", even though I'm quite aware that that's a religion, not an ethnicity.  So it's just as false a label as referring to Natives as "Indians".) 

 

So, to me, in my head, a person of Native American ancestry is an "Indian", and a person of ancestry from India is "Hindu". 

 

Both labels are wrong, and I know it.  But at least I have a way to refer to them without using the same word. 

 


 

It would be so much simpler if we just didn't have to label people's ethnicity at all.  But I guess we, or at least I, aren't there yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theundefeated.com/features/the-majority-that-isnt-moral/

Your good friend....the fact that this is on the undefeated is classic.

 

That was a horrible article so Unwise Mike gets to decide what is and isn't moral? The whole false equivalency with civil rights and gay marriage is just absurd. A team name is not a moral issue civil rights and gay marriage are a moral issue because people are being denied their god given rights a team name that offends a small minority of people and their sensibilities is not a moral issue the last I checked not being offended is not a god given right.  

 

This guy is such a self-righteous prick and what's up with that quote in his signature too "Barrack Obama was lucky to meet him once" way to show disrespect to the highest office in the USA. I guess he is trying to be funny but like his bad radio show and anything that spews out of his windbag the joke falls flat. Even by saying that quote he seems to reek of the same condescension of certain right wing media outlets. What a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really give much creedence to the 'call a NA a redskin to their face' argument.

 

 So, a little while ago I was hanging out with a friend in a club. She was performing later and we were having a drink.  A couple of her other friends come up and she introduces me...

 

"I'd like you to meet Andrew. He's my Jewish friend."

 

It took me aback. I literally did a double take. Now, calling someone a Jew is in no way an insult and I don't think she meant it to be, but it was strange to be addressed that way. For that reason, amongst others, I can't imagine going into a place and meeting someone new and saying, "hey Redskin" just like I don't think I would ever say... "Here's my Redskins' buddy" or even "My Native American pal" It's just a weird thing to do.

 

How often do you go around saying... "Hi, white guy!" or "Hey, black guy!" 

 

So, the argument seems strange to me. People I meet are people. I may identify them as belonging to a race, gender, religion, culture, etc. but that's not how I greet them. Who does that?

Edited by Burgold
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the argument seems strange to me. People I meet are people. I may identify them as belonging to a race, gender, religion, culture, etc. but that's not how I greet them. Who does that?

 

Strange to me as well. However, I have a high school aged son (Zak), who attends a large minority based high school. I have been introduced to African American and Hispanic parents as Zak's white dad and my son being introduced as "My white friend Zak". My son has introduced friends to me as "This is my Black/Mexican friend (insert name)." Maybe a kid thing? I have asked my son not to put his friends in an uncomfortable position like that, but maybe it was me being uncomfortable with the labeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the big problem with the "walk up to a Native and call him a redskin" argument, is that even if things work out the way the name changer thinks it will, all that "experiment" has proven is that it is POSSIBLE to intentionally construct a way to make the term offensive.

Well, guess what? It's POSSIBLE to use the word "boy" in an offensive manner, too. But that's not an argument for why The Boy Scouts need to change their name.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, guess what? It's POSSIBLE to use the word "boy" in an offensive manner, too. But that's not an argument for why The Boy Scouts need to change their name.

That's an excellent way of explaining it. Really nice example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go up to a group of Mexican Americans and call them Browns and see if any are offended. If so, Cleveland needs to change their name and accept their culpability for the lack of economic opportunity in hispanic communities.

Likewise, approach a group of male gay activists and call the Packers. See what happens....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, guess what? It's POSSIBLE to use the word "boy" in an offensive manner, too. But that's not an argument for why The Boy Scouts need to change their name.

 

I don't understand how you can post this, but at the same time post that if 100 years from now a poll of NA's says 100% find it offensive that it should be changed then.

 

How is this post not exactly what I was saying in regards to intent and original context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you can post this, but at the same time post that if 100 years from now a poll of NA's says 100% find it offensive that it should be changed then.

 

How is this post not exactly what I was saying in regards to intent and original context?

 

Apples and oranges. 

 

One is arguing that the name "The Washington Redskins" should be changed, because the phrase "You dirty redskin" is offensive. 

 

The other is arguing that the name "The Washington Redskins" should be changed, because the phrase "The Washington Redskins" is offensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges. 

 

One is arguing that the name "The Washington Redskins" should be changed, because the phrase "You dirty redskin" is offensive. 

 

The other is arguing that the name "The Washington Redskins" should be changed, because the phrase "The Washington Redskins" is offensive. 

 

Right, and if in 100 years 'boy' is determined to be offensive to everyone The Boy Scouts should change their name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and if in 100 years 'boy' is determined to be offensive to everyone The Boy Scouts should change their name?

Keep trying to shift what I said.

If in 100 years "The Boy Scouts" is offensive, then The Boy Scouts should change their name.

If 100 years from now, the name "Disney" is offensive, then Disney should change their name. (Doing otherwise would be bad business.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Reid writes on RGIII, Wise writes on the Redskins name. Good, original content from The Undefeated.

So the Undefeated has UnWise Mike and Jason Reid writing for it? Remind me never to even bother reading that craptastic publication.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. For me, the single most surprising revelation in the poll was the response to the question, “If a NON-Native American person called you a Redskin, would you be personally offended, or not?” Overall, 80% of respondents said they would not be offended. Once again, the numbers were remarkably similar across all demographic breakdowns.

 

For name-changers, myself included, who’ve long said, “If you think there’s nothing wrong with the word ‘redskin,’ just try walking onto a reservation and saying that,” this poll data is a powerful rebuke. Granted, the 20% who would be offended shouldn’t be ignored (and I wouldn’t recommend actually walking onto a reservation giving “redskin” a test drive, since you’d still have a one-in-five chance of pissing somebody off), but I can’t imagine any name-changer thought that number would be so low.

 

Language evolves, and this term appears to be evolving. Simply referring to “redskin” as “a dictionary-defined slur” — a talking point that many name-changers trotted out in response to the poll — feels willful in the face of this polling data. Remember, dictionary entries change over time, too, and this one may have to be revised if the overwhelming majority of Native Americans don’t have a problem with the word. (As a few writers have suggested, it may simply be that the inherently high profile of an NFL team has overwhelmed and outweighed any other context for the word “redskins.” When most people hear it, they now think of the football team, period.)

 

For the past several years I’ve declined to refer to the ’Skins by their full name. Will I now start using the full name? I’m not there yet, for reasons I’ll get to. Still, this poll question was a serious eye-opener.

 

 

http://www.uni-watch.com/2016/05/23/some-thoughts-on-the-wapos-redskins-poll/

 

 

Or perhaps, the 20% or so that  took offense is because they interpeted term "Redskin" to be a reference to the football team since in all probability that's the only contex they've ever heard the term used. Damm Cowboys fans. I'd be willing to be no one from this survey has ever been call 'A REDSKIN" AS A PERJORATIVE. NO ONE.

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.