Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

  The Anneberg survey was landlines only (which skews toward older people), let people "self identify" as Native American (half the white people I know claim to be 1/32 cherokee, especially in the South), and asked the question in an awkward fashion.   The results may or may not accurately reflect Native American sentiment, but I'm not comfortable with the methodology.

 

If Snyder really wants this to go away, he could commission a clean, well constructed survey of actual Native Americans and we would know a lot more.    

 

From the SI poll:

 

"To a lot of the younger folks the name Redskins is tied to the football team, and it doesn't represent anything more than the team," says Roland McCook, a member of the tribal council of the Ute tribe in Fort Duchesne, Utah.

 

 

Why do you find this awkward? ( Annenberg )

 

“The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

 

Edited by Spearfeather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the origins of the word are?  Who cares who used to use it?  Who cares who is offended or not offended by it?   Who cares if you have to get a new jersey?    Who cares how it's meant to be used?  

 

The word is inherently racist.   Redskins groups people together by the color of their skin.   It's racist.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the origins of the word are? Who cares who used to use it? Who cares who is offended or not offended by it? Who cares if you have to get a new jersey? Who cares how it's meant to be used?

The word is inherently racist. Redskins groups people together by the color of their skin. It's racist.

This is exactly the fallacy that has driven this debate in the media. It's simply not true. It's a proper noun, not an adjective.

Edited by skinsfan_1215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the fallacy that has driven this debate in the media. It's simply not true. It's a proper noun, not an adjective.

C'mon man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry, you're right. You've convinced me.

Wait, is my sarcasm detector faulty?

 

That's what we are sticking with?  It's a proper noun and not an adjective?   That's where Redskins nation is at?   If this is the best we can come up with for what I posted above, we are in a world of hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what we are sticking with? It's a proper noun and not an adjective? That's where Redskins nation is at? If this is the best we can come up with for what I posted above, we are in a world of hurt.

I felt the need to explain since you didn't seem to comprehend why it's not inherently offensive. That's why comparing it to Blackskins or Whiteskins doesn't make sense, because those aren't words.

Edited by skinsfan_1215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt the need to explain since you didn't seem to comprehend why it's not inherently offensive. That's why comparing it to Blackskins or Whiteskins doesn't make sense, because those aren't words.

 

Oh dear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about evil people that are exploiting the struggle Native Americans face 

 

No it's really not about evil people blah blah blah.   Demonizing the opposition is a cheap way to dismiss them, and it only works with people who already agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feels like we're beyond polls now. The avalanche has started on this one. Question now is how fast it moves. 

I think right now it's the hot topic of the day.  It will fizzle out shortly as other topics of the day get ushered in.  All news stories fade away.  People eventually get numb about a subject when hit with a story over and over and move on to other topics to talk about at the water cooler.  I hope this story rallies the team with an "us against the world" mentality and they come out Sunday night and put a whoopin' on the Cowb*ys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annenberg question - “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

 

Why do you find this awkward?

 

Because it is not comparing equivalents.  Someone can easily answer that something is offensive but it doesn't bother them.  Maybe it doesn bother them because they have bigger things to worry about right now, or because they take pride in being too emotionally strong to be bothered by such things, or for lots of other reasons.    No political pollster would ask a question like "Mitt Romeny and Barack Obama are running for President.  Do you think Mitt Romney would be the best choice or wouldn't that bother you?" 

 

It's also possible to do something inappropriate without being "offensive."  Saying the word "f*ck" out loud doesn't "offend" me per se.  Sometimes it even makes me laugh.  I also don't formally endorse doing it, or tell my kids that it is ok to do it, or think it is appropriate to have my team called the "Washington F*ckers" 

 

I'm sure that someone who is educated in polling could find more flaws in that question, but those jumped out at me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the origins of the word are?  Who cares who used to use it?  Who cares who is offended or not offended by it?   Who cares if you have to get a new jersey?    Who cares how it's meant to be used?  

 

The word is inherently racist.   Redskins groups people together by the color of their skin.   It's racist.   

 

I care that the issues of people starving have taken a back seat to this nonsense, unless of course money will fall from the sky for the poor reservatons the moment the first bit of new name merchendise hits the stores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt the need to explain since you didn't seem to comprehend why it's not inherently offensive. That's why comparing it to Blackskins or Whiteskins doesn't make sense, because those aren't words.

 

I really don't think this is a compelling argument to anyone who isn't a Redskins fan.  

 

It also ignores the fact that pretty much all dictionaries say that the noun "Redskin" IS offensive and archaic.

I care that the issues of people starving have taken a back seat to this nonsense, unless of course money will fall from the sky for the poor reservatons the moment the first bit of new name merchendise hits the stores.

 

Are you saying that "the issue of people starving" was on the front seat before, but the name controversy pushed it to the backseat?

 

Doesn't this argument mean that we should care about sports at all?  After all, people are starving - how can you talk about sports at a time like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think this is a compelling argument to anyone who isn't a Redskins fan.

It also ignores the fact that pretty much all dictionaries say that the noun "Redskin" IS offensive and archaic.

It's not. As for the dictionaries, that is a compelling argument at face value but I'd love to know what went into the decision to define the word that way. When did it first get that definition? Was it just one dictionary 50 years ago, and everyone else piggybacking off of it?

There was an journal, I believe written by someone with the Smithsonian, that dug into the history of the word. I've got to track it down and re-read it, brush up on some of the history. Coupled with the (presumed accurate until demonstrated otherwise) Annenberg poll, it's the only really compelling argument against name change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not. As for the dictionaries, that is a compelling argument at face value but I'd love to know what went into the decision to define the word that way. When did it first get that definition? Was it just one dictionary 50 years ago, and everyone else piggybacking off of it?

There was an journal, I believe written by someone with the Smithsonian, that dug into the history of the word. I've got to track it down and re-read it, brush up on some of the history. Coupled with the (presumed accurate until demonstrated otherwise) Annenberg poll, it's the only really compelling argument against name change.

 

I know the history up and down.  It doesn't resolve the question.

 

Language meanings change over time.  Calling a black person a "colored boy" wasn't considered inappropriate in the 1930s.  It is considered inappropriate now.  

 

NOW the dictionaries say Redskin is inappropriate, a slur, archaic, etc.  Check for yourself. 

 

 http://www.onelook.com/?ls=b&fc=all_gen&q=Redskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's really not about evil people blah blah blah.   Demonizing the opposition is a cheap way to dismiss them, and it only works with people who already agree with you.

 

I never even took a side I stated that in a post in this thread. I'll ask this question again, how many kids from poor reservations could be sent to community college with even half the money spend on campaigning for this garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the history up and down. It doesn't resolve the question.

Language meanings change over time. Calling a black person a "colored boy" wasn't considered inappropriate in the 1930s. It is considered inappropriate now.

NOW the dictionaries say Redskin is inappropriate, a slur, archaic, etc. Check for yourself.

http://www.onelook.com/?ls=b&fc=all_gen&q=Redskin

My question is at what point did it become a slur? When did dictionaries begin defining it that way? Was it decades after the last time it was widely used? It SOUNDS like a slur. That's why the media is eating this up. Did someone defining the word make that same mistake at one point in time? I don't know, and I think it's a legitimate question. Not to try to re-write history, just to clarify it since that history is very relevant today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think this is a compelling argument to anyone who isn't a Redskins fan.  

 

It also ignores the fact that pretty much all dictionaries say that the noun "Redskin" IS offensive and archaic.

 

Are you saying that "the issue of people starving" was on the front seat before, but the name controversy pushed it to the backseat?

 

Doesn't this argument mean that we should care about sports at all?  After all, people are starving - how can you talk about sports at a time like this?

 

If your comprehension led you to believe that that's a logical comparison the Redskins name is the very least of your problems.

Edited by SJValleySkinz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never even took a side I stated that in a post in this thread. I'll ask this question again, how many kids from poor reservations could be sent to community college with even half the money spend on campaigning for this garbage.

 

You never even took a side?  

 

You called the other side "evil," in more than one post.  

 

And how many kids from poor reservations could be sent to community college with even half the money we spend on Redskins jerseys and gear?    ( hint - there's no need to answer because it's a silly question )

My question is at what point did it become a slur? When did dictionaries begin defining it that way? Was it decades after the last time it was widely used? It SOUNDS like a slur. That's why the media is eating this up. Did someone defining the word make that same mistake at one point in time? I don't know, and I think it's a legitimate question. Not to try to re-write history, just to clarify it since that history is very relevant today.

 

I suspect there is no absolutely clear answer to that question, just as there is no absolutely clear answer to the question of when exactly calling someone a "colored boy" became inappropriate.   But it did happen, just the same.

 

But you have hit the nail on the head.  It really does SOUND like a slur, and the dictionaries consider it a slur, and that is why the media is eating this up.  Not because they hate us or because of "insane political correctness run amuck raaaaarrrr what's next Vikings we can never give in or America is lost!!!!"   Its because the word is past its due date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is not comparing equivalents.  Someone can easily answer that something is offensive but it doesn't bother them.  

 

 

So, you think that if the question was: Do you find the name " Washington Redskins " offensive, or do you find " Washington Redskins " not offensive; there would have been a different outcome ?

Edited by Spearfeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the origins of the word are?  Who cares who used to use it?  Who cares who is offended or not offended by it?   Who cares if you have to get a new jersey?    Who cares how it's meant to be used?  

 

The word is inherently racist.   Redskins groups people together by the color of their skin.   It's racist.   

Hmm...all the sources I've seen has the word Redskin coming from red war paint.  They used red war paint because it was the color of war and battle.  But I know those who want a name change ignore or spin that and make excuses because it doesn't fit their argument. 

 

Honestly, for any Redskin fan who wants a name change, I think it's time for you guys to put your money where your mouth is and move on to another team. If you think the name is racist, then aren't you supporting racism by continuing to be a Redskins fan?  What's more important to you, your convictions or a sports team? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never even took a side?  

 

You called the other side "evil," in more than one post.  

 

And how many kids from poor reservations could be sent to community college with even half the money we spend on Redskins jerseys and gear?    ( hint - there's no need to answer because it's a silly question )

 

I suspect there is no absolutely clear answer to that question, just as there is no absolutely clear answer to the question of when exactly calling someone a "colored boy" became inappropriate.   But it did happen, just the same.

 

But you have hit the nail on the head.  It really does SOUND like a slur, and the dictionaries consider it a slur, and that is why the media is eating this up.  Not because they hate us or because of "insane political correctness run amuck raaaaarrrr what's next Vikings we can never give in or America is lost!!!!"   Its because the word is past its due date.

 

Only Redskins fans don't claim to be a voice for anyone and run endless campaigns about it. The difference is appearing to be concerned to further your own agenda while you're dropping thousands of dollars on something that will make no substantial contribution, won't put food on tables, won't put clothes on backs. I'm attacking those people not the ones who find it offensive because only they will benefit from what they are doing. Like I said I could care less about the name but it's wrong to use a cause that involves people that are suffering and not only not help them but draw attention to and invest money into something that poses as "helping the cause" when all they7 are doing is helping themselves. Evil.

Edited by SJValleySkinz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why some are trying to "win" the offensive vs. non-offensive battle. It's never going to be something that can be put to bed or proven. It's a gray area and a word that that will offend some people while not offending others. It's also a word that some will perceive to be offensive despite not being impacted by it.

 

Because of that, all that really matters is the opinion of those who could legitimately claim to be offended by the word. It doesn't matter if skinsfan_1215 thinks it's perfectly acceptable or can find a news article from 1922 using the word in a positive manner. It also doesn't matter if SJValley thinks it's a horrible word. Broadening the scope, it doesn't matter if UnWise Mike thinks it's mean and Dan Snyder thinks it's honoring tribes.

 

No one is ever going to win that debate because there is no arbitration process or a smoking gun to prove one opinion is more accurate. The focus should be on determining how Native Americans feel about the word. That's really all that matters. If the poll from 10 years ago is being called into question, then someone should fund a new one. If the issue means enough to someone (on either side) that seems like the next logical step.

 

What either side does with the results will be interesting, but we aren't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the origins of the word are?  Who cares who used to use it?  Who cares who is offended or not offended by it?   Who cares if you have to get a new jersey?    Who cares how it's meant to be used?  

 

The word is inherently racist.   Redskins groups people together by the color of their skin.   It's racist.   

 

Actually it does not refer to the Native American community as a whole, it refers to the red paints certain tribes used before going into battle or before ceremonies.  Nothing to do with natural pigmentation.  Now, does this mean it shouldn't be considered offensive, no. 

 

Grouping people by skin isn't inherently racist anyway.  When you imply that it is the reason they are inferior, then it is racist.  It is now at the point where the very MENTION of someone's ethnicity means you're a racist. 

Edited by Sticksboi05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...all the sources I've seen has the word Redskin coming from red war paint.  They used red war paint because it was the color of war and battle.  But I know those who want a name change ignore or spin that and make excuses because it doesn't fit their argument. 

 

Honestly, for any Redskin fan who wants a name change, I think it's time for you guys to put your money where your mouth is and move on to another team. If you think the name is racist, then aren't you supporting racism by continuing to be a Redskins fan?  What's more important to you, your convictions or a sports team? 

 

Again, it really doesn't matter what Joe the Skins fan thinks. I mean, I suppose if the name offended Joe the Skins fan, then he could choose to boycott the team too. But, in the end, someone is either offended or not. I'm tired of hearing people go to the ends of the earth to prove it's offensive and others work just as hard to prove that it might not be. I just think that's the wrong question to attempt to answer with a consensus.

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.