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

[grego]

1 hour ago, thebluefood said:

talking to friends who are members of indigenous tribes (including one who is getting his PhD in a subject related to indigenous studies), and reading about the Washington Post's methodology for conducting its recent survey on the nickname (which was wanting since it only surveyed a little more than 500, self-identified Native Americans without verification), the evidence against it stacked too high for me to ignore.

 

you are absolutely entitled to feel however you want about the name, but if part of your basis for wanting it changed is the poll methodology, i would say thats not a solid argument. 

 

here is some info on how they did it.-

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?utm_term=.521354b90269

 

the methodology is standard polling practice. the fact that the post has been officially against the name (and not friendly with the owner) makes it more credible. 

 

the only reason people question the methodology (without proof that it was faulty) is that they don't like the result. if someone has it in their mind that they think the name is racist, they are unlikely to agree with a poll that says that 90% of their peers disagree. steven pinker calls this the pauline keal effect- she said "I don't know how Nixon won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." your friends should get out of their bubbles. 

 

as was said above, getting 90% of people to agree on anything is incredibly difficult. a higher percentage of people believe in big foot, aliens or that elvis is still alive, for context.

 

the director of the annenberg poll from 2004 (another 'flawed' poll which somehow got identical results), adam clymer, much like the washington post, has gone on record as being against the name, but defends the methodology. 

 

your friends have strong feelings on the name, no doubt. but feelings are not facts, and so far, all of the facts in this debate  are on the side of the team. 

 

[elkabong82]

I'll add that the other reason some question the poll results, other than not liking them, is because they don't understand the mathematical concept of probability and random sampling.

 

Seriously, what are the odds of randomly calling people and getting 450 out 500 people that lied about being Native American and said they don't have an issue with the name? Or even just the odds of half of them lying? 

 

If the name is truly offensive to most Native Americans, then odds should heavily be that calling at random most would have said they are offended. 

 

Sure you have to take it on good faith that people are indeed Native American, but without knowing in advance the purpose of the survey, where's the incentive to lie? And even if you did know in advance, it's not like the nation is filled with people who care enough to lie just so they can say they aren't offended.

 

Lastly, what are the odds that 2 surveys conducted a decade apart would have the exact same result because the exact same number of people lied about being Native American AND said they weren't offended? It's as prepostourous as it is ignorant.

 

Face fact: the poll results are true. 

[elkabong82]

On 12/17/2017 at 6:01 PM, Mr. Sinister said:

Totally have no problem with the name changing, or the owner changing, or the entire team relocating the hell away from me at this point.

 

I do have a problem when people try to call out or correct Redskins fans when they say Redskins, like LZ Granderson did this past week with Peter Rosenberg. There is one man who controls what will or will not happen. His name is Daniel Snyder.

 

I respect the opinions of those Native Americans who are offended. I also respect the opinions of those who aren't. And as for whether or not it is offensive, 99% of the time I side with the opinions of the offended party. I am a minority, so I know the dangers of just casting aside ones pleas for reform, justice, etc,

 

And how exactly would you feel if whites changed the name of something you weren't bothered by, or maybe even liked, because they claimed offense for you? Would you not be pissed off? 

 

Throughout the entire debate, the voices of Native Americans who like the team specifically because of the name, and we have a bunch of members and tailgate regulars to whom this applies, have been largely ignored by those saying it is offensive. Many of them even going as far as to say or hint that those people don't count as "real" Native Americans. That's messed up.

 

Further, the offended party in this case is 10% of a minority group. It's not like it's the majority vs. a mnority group. It's the majority OF a minority group that doesn't take offense.

8 hours ago, grego said:

 

 

ah, i remember that. people protesting, virtue signaling media trolls, believing and repeating stories about the name and how native americans are offended by it.

 

until we found out it was made up.the interwebs is a hell of a thing. 

 

good times. 

 

It's sad that poster doesn't realize he comes off as a schtick in here

[elkabong82]

5 hours ago, thebluefood said:

 

 

But I can't actively support this team so long as they hold that nickname anymore.  

 

Yet you keep posting on ES, giving the site traffic, and are posting in the gameday thread which means you're still following the team. 

 

Do the opinions of our Native American fans that post on ES and root for the team not matter?

[Mr. Sinister]

46 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

And how exactly would you feel if whites changed the name of something you weren't bothered by, or maybe even liked, because they claimed offense for you? Would you not be pissed off? 

 

Here is my opinion, and I am going to make it crystal clear for all, to avoid any mishaps. 

 

Damn right I would be pissed, if anyone dared tell me what was or wasn't clearly offensive, or take the mantle of offense for me. There would be no higher form of insult (actually that's a lie. I have to include the ludicrous  yet often seen scenario, where using my background as an example, some white or black persons  fathers cousins uncles mother was Puerto Rican or Italian, which some somehow gives them the necessary racial credits to qualify, with them deciding to select "Nope, Totally Not Offensive").

 

I made sure to bold the other part, because that is what I meant by plenty of dumbasses that I happen to agree (sort of) with.

 

See, regardless of the origins or intended use of the word, I have no doubt that idiots have co-opted it as a derogatory attack against native americans all, just like they co-opt other dumb phrases. So, I believe many when they say it hurts them. Nothing is ever black or white. Do I think it's rampant? I'm not assholish enough to give an emphatic yes or no, but I'd doubt it. Regardless, I wouldn't brush it aside and say they should basically get over it.

 

Some people have the basic brainpower and human decency to understand that, avoiding lathered up overhanded attacks against them and their sincerity (much like Wise and his beatdown worthy antics towards those who aren't offended).

 

It is not my place to tell a black/asian person what is or isn't offensive, so Im not gonna do it here. What I have said, and will continue to say, is that numbers such as the ones continuously polled, speak loudly. Opinions on record in favor of the name from many different people of the offended party, speak loudly. A native American man designing the logo, speaks loudly.

 

Pondering all of this for years leads me to the conclusion that the only people who should have any business deciding this, are Native Americans in totality. It is an issue between them. It is a not an issue where I have a burning desire to pick either "side"

 

No minority issue has ever been led with such a stark contradiction in actual public opinion, and it is sad what is happening. They're voice is the only voice that should be heard, period.

 

As for the offended, is it fair that the name would go on despite how they feel? Perhaps not, but nothing us ever perfect, but 90+% approval/non offense is pretty close to it

[Kosher Ham]

Well stated Sin. 

[techboy]

Here's a perspective I haven't seen considered before:

 

https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-how-native-american-mascots-reinforce-stereotypes-63861

 

Here are three relevant excerpts:

 

But as the Redskins kicked off their season on Sept. 12, there was hardly a mention of the name controversy that has, in recent years, elicited boycotts, lawsuits and protests.

 

Perhaps it’s due to the Washington Post survey from last spring finding that 90 percent of the Native Americans polled weren’t offended by the Redskins name. Since then, defenders of the name – including team owner Daniel Snyder – have considered the controversy over and done with. The “sticks and stones” argument suggested by the poll makes complete sense from a self-preservation standpoint; after all, Native Americans have had to persevere through worse offenses than mascots.

 

But that stance ignores the dangerous possibility that such ethnic names and imagery affect how other people view Native Americans – possibly in subtle and damaging ways.

 

Our research has shown that incidental exposure to Native American sports mascots can reinforce stereotypes in people. Perhaps more disturbingly, people aren’t even aware that this subtle reinforcement is taking place.

 

and

 

This difference in results represents something called implicit bias, which often takes place when asking people about socially sensitive subjects such as race or gender. Our participants were either unwilling to admit or unaware of the mascot’s influence on their views of Native Americans; their bias was implicit, either hidden or incognizant.

 

Implicit bias can influence decisions ranging from hiring practices to jury preferences and criminal sentencing. And it’s all the more pernicious because the people making these biased decisions are unlikely to be aware that they’re doing so.

 

Interestingly, the liberal participants in our studies were more affected by Native American mascots than were their conservative peers.

 

Because liberals often think of themselves as being less susceptible to racial bias, this might seem counterintuitive. But liberals also have been shown to have more malleable worldviews and be more open to new information. And in our study, we found a stereotypical mascot could significantly degrade liberals’ attitudes toward Native Americans.

 

and

 

Some might wonder what the problem is with being seen as warlike. After all, isn’t that associated with bravery and toughness?

 

But studies have shown how stereotypes of any kind – even positive ones – carry consequences. They can lead to performance anxiety, as Sapna Cheryan and her colleagues found when looking at stereotypes concerning Asian Americans’ math ability. Subsequent studies have shown how experiencing a positive stereotype can make people expect future prejudicial treatment.

 

Despite these findings, defenders of Native American mascots continue to argue that the mascots honor Native Americans and improve perceptions of Native people.

 

The article is written by the lead researcher. 

 

To answer the inevitable follow-ups:

 

1. The paper is here: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-consumer-psychology/forthcoming-articles/activating-stereotypes-with-brand-imagery-the-role-of-viewer

 

2. I don't know where you can get a copy free without an academic subscription of some kind, but in reality, if you're qualified to legitimately critique the methodology of the researchers, you likely already have access one way or another.

[BleedBNG]

For those in the media who dislike saying or printing our name, you can now use Crimson Tide.

[Riggo#44]

Another High School keeps the name Redskins

 

[Burgold]

On 4/28/2018 at 5:25 PM, BleedBNG said:

For those in the media who dislike saying or printing our name, you can now use Crimson Tide.

Please :doh:

We are the Burgundy Tide! 

[Riggo#44]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

Please :doh:

We are the Burgundy Tide! 

 You're both wrong: Maroon Tide.

[Mr. Sinister]

4 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

 

The image of what looks like an elderly white woman holding up an outrageously bull**** caricature/doll is precisely why I have no problem eliminating every logo/name associated with it.

[hail2skins]

What is the current status regarding the DC government on the name of the team and how it would impact the chances of the stadium being built in DC?

 

I ask because the most recent chatter regarding the stadium seems to really have people wanting the stadium to be in the city. 

[mark327]

49 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

The image of what looks like an elderly white woman holding up an outrageously bull**** caricature/doll is precisely why I have no problem eliminating every logo/name associated with it.

The elderly woman isn't holding the doll/mascot. Her arms are crossed in front of her. 

[Mr. Sinister]

10 minutes ago, mark327 said:

The elderly woman isn't holding the doll/mascot. Her arms are crossed in front of her. 

 

Thanks for pointing it out. I recognized that later on. 

 

Whats your opinion on the notion of a seemingly non Native American group of people championing keeping the name (this is giving the people in the photo  the very large benefit of doubt that it's about more than a name, but the people behind it,  and their feelings too), with that blatantly racist caricature being held up, and how it makes up one of the many layers of this issue (imagery)?

[Renegade7]

I hate this thread.

[Riggo#44]

Yeah, I regret bumping it up. Perhaps it's time to close it--since this fight is pretty much over.

[CrypticVillain]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I hate this thread.

Facts... Let out a big sigh when I saw it. Haven't heard anything about the name in a minute.

3 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Yeah, I regret bumping it up. Perhaps it's time to close it--since this fight is pretty much over.

Naw, we can't. I feel like it is something we can't just ignore. Edit:No matter how annoying it is. Lol

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, CrypticVillain said:

Facts... Let out a big sigh when I saw it. Haven't heard anything about the name in a minute.

 

Naw, we can't. I feel like it is something we can't just ignore. 

 

It will eventually happen anyway.  A compromise would've been putting the arrow back on the helmet again instead, but no, Danny drew the line in the sand right at the tip of his feet. 

 

I've seen enough in regards to how Native Americans as a whole either don't care or take pride in someone taking pride in them (the work Snyder does for NA is rarely if ever brought up in his defense, especially compared to some of these ****heads that claim they care so much about them).  But if the Cleveland Indians can get rid of chief wahoo without people trying to put a knife to their neck like the do us, we should just do it.  We aren't the packers, our uniforms have changed several times over the course of our history, Cleveland Indians are showing us how to handle this in a way that doesn't come across as turning on our history. 

 

How I feel about the name is irrelevant, no one's going to be able to touch it until Snyder dies.  This thread has always been like the Civil War of Extremeskins. The only people that die are Redskins fans, I'm always letting out collective sigh knowing that's probably what's happening everytime I see it get bumped.

[CrypticVillain]

Touché.

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, CrypticVillain said:

Touché.

I took no joy in writing that at all.

[RedskinsFan44]

3 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

The image of what looks like an elderly white woman holding up an outrageously bull**** caricature/doll is precisely why I have no problem eliminating every logo/name associated with it.

I agree. I think the DC fan base has for the most part done a good job of stepping back from ignorant caricatures, and that a number of teams with less controversy have far more egregious behaviors/ imagery, but I am weary of trying to defend it when that kind of nonsense exists. I would like the team to tie in to the Caps / Nationals America F yeah! theme. I know, history and all, but seriously, the team has already done a lot of cleanup trying to defend it. Either way, looking forward to another season .

 

 

[RansomthePasserby]

Honestly, I wish I could go back to the more innocent time of my childhood where a “Redskin” was one of my favorite football players. As a kid, the concept of racism doesn’t even enter your mind, I loved the team, the colors, the logo, the name. It’s weird to grow up and realize something you love could be viewed as a symbol of hate by other people.

[Riggo#44]

8 hours ago, RansomthePasserby said:

It’s weird to grow up and realize something you love could be viewed as a symbol of hate by other people.

 

By all accounts, it was a small number of very vocal people. With all emotionally-charged movements like this one, it dies out eventually. Personally, and maybe this isn't "PC" or "woke" or what have you, but I cannot for the life of me summon the energy to care about every time someone gets their feelings hurt.

 

With the Supreme Court ruling a little while back, the name isn't changing under Snyder--nor should it.

[Mr. Sinister]

9 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

I agree. I think the DC fan base has for the most part done a good job of stepping back from ignorant caricatures, and that a number of teams with less controversy have far more egregious behaviors/ imagery, but I am weary of trying to defend it when that kind of nonsense exists. I would like the team to tie in to the Caps / Nationals America F yeah! theme. I know, history and all, but seriously, the team has already done a lot of cleanup trying to defend it. Either way, looking forward to another season .

 

 

 

Me too. And yeah, it is surprising that Cleveland escaped so much criticism with that awful logo they had, when compared to us.