Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

That could have everything to do with this new story. Either Reilly is a complete liar who figured his father in law would never find out about how he quoted him or would never raise a fuss about it, or this guy completely changed his story after getting heat for his quoted comments by Reilly, which is possible because he repeats some of the same exact talking points and even mentions he didn't want to be viewed as an Uncle Tom. There's no way Reilly could have legitimately confused his father in law's message. So one of them is lying.

 

Either way it doesn't negate the Native American high schools using the name, the Annenberg Poll, the tribes and chiefs quoted in Snyder's letter, or that our own logo was designed by Native Americans.

 

Its amazing how the opposition destroyed Snyder's letter without acknowledging any of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing how the opposition destroyed Snyder's letter without acknowledging any of the facts.

 

Because those are inconvenient and poke holes in their predetermined opinion. You notice how most of us in here have said that if it was clear that the name was offensive to most that we would be in favor of a name change as well? And that most of us have looked at the arguments in favor of a name change and addressed them? Yet you don't see that out of most on the other side. They see "red" and "skins" together and their PC perspective triggers with assumptions.

 

I've seen a couple in here state that even of some are offended then change should happen, I've seen some in here say that since the word was once used in a bad manner it shouldn't be used now, even in a good way. I disagree, but at least those are decent philosophical arguments.

 

But I look at these arguments coming from Harjo, Halbritter,  and other advocates and when I look into them they fall apart:

 

-They claim it is a racial slur, yet majority don't have issue and they have their own schools using the name.
-They want all imagery and names removed from all sports. Yet they don't have any outrage, yet anyways, towards the Buffalo Bills, named for a man who slaughtered their people, or teams that invoke Manifest Destiny which helped wipe many of their people out. Their POV on this matter is entirely superficial and ignorant of the history of their people's plight.
-They claim the name comes from scalping Indians. This has been debunked by historians and no evidence of it could be provided in court. 
-Halbritter of Oneida Nation, one of the biggest advocates, was kicked out of his tribe decades ago and is protested by his own people for kicking them off their land.
-They also claim that the name and Native American imagery in sports causes their people mental distress and health disorders.
 
So I ask you, do these sound like the claims of sane, rational people? Or could it be this is a loony minority of people, like other advocacy groups, and the main reason it gets support from some, especially media, is due to guilt and the assumption due to PC perspective that "red" and "skins" must be racist? That's what it looks like to me, and the fear of being considered racist could certainly cause some to completely ignore the Annenberg Poll or try to make claims that the poll results were skewed by landlines and only in the continental US, which is completely ignorant of the math and stats behind it and how polls work and how probability completely eradicates those claims, and why they ignore that Native American high schools use the name, and why they ignore the voices of Native Americans who are in favor of the name.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Reilly's been in the business too long to have fabricated that story.  One of them is making **** up.  "I don't want to be an Uncle Tom":  I hate that despicable term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, it's 2013 right?

If somebody is misquoting you, why in the world would you wait 22 days to respond? This is a 24-hour news world. You mean to tell me that your son-in-law wrote an article putting words in your mouth, and you waited 22 days to respond?

 

If somebody misquotes me, I can tell you right now, it won't take me twenty to days to respond. 

 

I don't know which story is true, but to wait 22 days to "clear the air", I don't know about that....

Edited by MLSKINS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, it's 2013 right?

If somebody is misquoting you, why in the world would you wait 22 days to respond? This is a 24-hour news world. You mean to tell me that your son and law wrote an article putting words in your mouth, and you waited 22 days to respond?

If somebody misquotes me, I can tell you right now, it won't take me twenty to days to respond.

I don't know which story is true, but to wait 22 days to "clear the air", I don't know about that....

When Rick’s article came out, it upset me to be portrayed as an “Uncle Tom” in support of this racial slur. I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696

They are family aren't they? It sounds like he wanted his son in law to correct himself and not have to pen a response himself.

This response from Bob Burns is the most damaging that I've read to date. It's going to get a lot of attention. I'm interested to see if it stands up or if this guy will turn out to be some sort of mini dictator casino boss as week like Ray Halbritter.

Speaking of responding, did Ray Halbritter ever respond to Daniel Greenfield's article?

Edited by Destino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, it's 2013 right?

If somebody is misquoting you, why in the world would you wait 22 days to respond? This is a 24-hour news world. You mean to tell me that your son-in-law wrote an article putting words in your mouth, and you waited 22 days to respond?

If somebody misquotes me, I can tell you right now, it won't take me twenty to days to respond.

I don't know which story is true, but to wait 22 days to "clear the air", I don't know about that....

The father in law claims that Reilly had promised to retract the story after they spoke about the misquote. And when the story wasnt retracted, he decided to take matters into his own hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are family aren't they? It sounds like he wanted his son in law to correct himself and not have to pen a response himself.

Yeah, I noticed that, but still, with a topic that is constantly debated like this, with people looking at you sideways, you're seriously going to wait three weeks to set the issue straight? Family or not, I don't know anybody that's going to wait that long to let their people think their an "Uncle Tom".

 

Furthermore, like somebody mentioned earlier, Rick Reily is a good journalist. Do you really think that he would be opposed on a debate like this without having his ducks in a row? Like I said, I don't know the truth, but I know how heated this issue is, and it wouldn't shock me if I found out BOTH sides were doing some underhanded stuff to prove a point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reilly has responded

While I stand by the reporting in my Sept. 18 column about the Washington Redskins nickname controversy, and felt I accurately quoted my father-in-law in the piece, clearly he feels differently. This is an incredibly sensitive issue, and Bob felt he had more to say on the subject after that column was posted on ESPN.com. We've spoken and cleared this up. I admire Bob and respect his opinions, and he's welcome to express them. Bob and I are good and I'm looking forward to my next steak with him.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rpkd7s

Might be that his father-in-law probably downplayed it but Reilly misunderstood the reasons for downplaying it. That would be a reasonable middle ground. Then again one might be lying, though I'd need to see something in order to think that.

Edited by Destino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, the name will eventually change. I have no doubts about this. More and more people who feel guilty about not having a minority friend will want to fight this name and fight "the power" and "racism" as if this was the 1960s.People will change twitter icons and facebook profile pictures in the name of justice for all Native Americans.

 

The only thing that makes me feel better that even if the name does change a few years from now, 100 years from now people won't even be playing football or know what the NFL is. Everyone will be playing a new exciting game "Laser gun deep space flying scooter zero gravity kick ball on the moon" So it will be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Bob got some heat from some people and felt like he had to change his tune ?

Is Reilly just full of crap? Taking his dad in laws comments out of context, knowingly ?

I don't know. Really odd turn of events. Nothing makes sense at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Bob got some heat from some people and felt like he had to change his tune ?

If that's the case lets hope a lot more tribal elders (I have no idea if that's the right term) aren't being pressured to pen their own similar letters. If more letters like that come out and none pop up in support of the name from equivalent sources this situation could turn in a hurry. Edited by Destino
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this debate might be entering its endgame.  i wonder what the new name will be.

I'm guessing the Warriors. That seems to be coming up over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please not the Warriors that name is too damn common. I want to be the Washington Bestest Team Ever. If it does change and I really hope it does not because it will break my heart but it needs to be something unique no "Warriors" no "Night hawks" no to high school team names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Almost everyone that quotes Obama's comments, leaves off what he said at the very end.

 

".... but I don't have a stake in this, in the sense that I'm not part owner of any football team. "

Edited by Spearfeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does. And what's to keep those who are pushing for this from going after fans who continue to use the name next?  What's to keep them from moving on to stigmatizing wearing Redskins clothes?

 

If the name changes the logo will go with it or won't be far behind. I guarantee it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we just change our logo and mascot to a small potato? There, everyone's happy. 

 

If that doesn't work, I'd be on board with 'Washington Natives'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the name changes the logo will go with it or won't be far behind. I guarantee it.

 

for me, you drop all Native American imagery all together.  No sense in trying to represent and honor people that don't want to represented and honored. 

 

Or do they?  I'm still not sure, since all we have to go off is the Annenberg Poll that showed a large majority of Native Americans are not bothered by the name, but if you are forced to drop Redskins than you drop the whole thing.  You take the name Warriors, and you create a logo and uniform honoring our Armed Forces. 

 

No way you have any Native American theme if this is forced on us.  No ****ing way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we just change our logo and mascot to a small potato? There, everyone's happy. 

 

If that doesn't work, I'd be on board with 'Washington Natives'

Because who in the hell wants to root for a potato? Who feels pride in a friggin' POTATO?

A lumpy, turd shaped tuber. How appropriate for a football team.

How inspiring.

 

Honestly, of all the ideas this one keeps coming back and is about the dumbest thing ever.

You want to root for the Spuds?

 

"Well Biff, looks like those potatoes got mashed today, hyuk hyuk hyuk"

Seriously, what an absolute JOKE we would become. 

remember the last 20 years,, when th team was a joke in every sense..  we had the name and the colors to hang our pride on. The history was all we had.

 

Go ahead and make us the Potatoes, and the joke is 100% complete, it's on us, and we'd have done it to ourselves.

 

How about we keep the name, and put a picture of an awful rash on our helmets.

That way we can show red skin without being offensive.

We could change our colors to "Infection and pus"

 

Go team!

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because those are inconvenient and poke holes in their predetermined opinion. You notice how most of us in here have said that if it was clear that the name was offensive to most that we would be in favor of a name change as well? And that most of us have looked at the arguments in favor of a name change and addressed them? Yet you don't see that out of most on the other side. They see "red" and "skins" together and their PC perspective triggers with assumptions.

 

I've seen a couple in here state that even of some are offended then change should happen, I've seen some in here say that since the word was once used in a bad manner it shouldn't be used now, even in a good way. I disagree, but at least those are decent philosophical arguments.

 

But I look at these arguments coming from Harjo, Halbritter,  and other advocates and when I look into them they fall apart:

 

-They claim it is a racial slur, yet majority don't have issue and they have their own schools using the name.
-They want all imagery and names removed from all sports. Yet they don't have any outrage, yet anyways, towards the Buffalo Bills, named for a man who slaughtered their people, or teams that invoke Manifest Destiny which helped wipe many of their people out. Their POV on this matter is entirely superficial and ignorant of the history of their people's plight.
-They claim the name comes from scalping Indians. This has been debunked by historians and no evidence of it could be provided in court. 
-Halbritter of Oneida Nation, one of the biggest advocates, was kicked out of his tribe decades ago and is protested by his own people for kicking them off their land.
-They also claim that the name and Native American imagery in sports causes their people mental distress and health disorders.
 
So I ask you, do these sound like the claims of sane, rational people? Or could it be this is a loony minority of people, like other advocacy groups, and the main reason it gets support from some, especially media, is due to guilt and the assumption due to PC perspective that "red" and "skins" must be racist? That's what it looks like to me, and the fear of being considered racist could certainly cause some to completely ignore the Annenberg Poll or try to make claims that the poll results were skewed by landlines and only in the continental US, which is completely ignorant of the math and stats behind it and how polls work and how probability completely eradicates those claims, and why they ignore that Native American high schools use the name, and why they ignore the voices of Native Americans who are in favor of the name.

 

 

elka, while that is a nice post and very articulately shoots down some of the popular criticisms of the Redskin name, it's a bit unfair to lump every group into one bucket. Not every opponent of the name has claimed many or any of those things. Just as I wouldn't want my stance (as a supporter of the name) to be blended with some of the extreme cases, we must be careful not to do the same.

 

There are some crazies on both sides. There are also a lot of people pretty close to the middle on both sides. Some supporters of the name (me, for example) understand that it might offend Native Americans while also understanding the original intention. Some opponents of the name may understand the original intention but might feel that the time has come.

 

Otherwise, nice post refuting some of the claims we have heard.

for me, you drop all Native American imagery all together.  No sense in trying to represent and honor people that don't want to represented and honored. 

 

Or do they?  I'm still not sure, since all we have to go off is the Annenberg Poll that showed a large majority of Native Americans are not bothered by the name, but if you are forced to drop Redskins than you drop the whole thing.  You take the name Warriors, and you create a logo and uniform honoring our Armed Forces. 

 

No way you have any Native American theme if this is forced on us.  No ****ing way.

 

You could be right. In my opinion, the only way you change the name is if you find that a growing number of Native Americans are offended. That's the only catalyst that makes sense to me. So, if that is the case, what are the odds that those offended people don't like "Redskins" but like "Warriors"? Probably not great.

 

If we become the Warriors, it will probably need to be more of the fictional context (like the Titans or Giants) rather than something else. As much as I'd love to keep our imagery and tradition, I'd almost rather do something like that than just nuance it a little and stay in the crosshairs.

Honestly, of all the ideas this one keeps coming back and is about the dumbest thing ever.

You want to root for the Spuds?

 

- Bang

 

Yeah, since Kornheiser said it years and years ago, I think this is the most annoying and unoriginal "joke" that is made far too often. I see it everytime the conversation comes up and roll my eyes. I'm not a huge Kornheiser fan though, so that could have something to do with it (I used to like him when he wrote columns, but can't stand his personality on the radio).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You could be right. In my opinion, the only way you change the name is if you find that a growing number of Native Americans are offended. That's the only catalyst that makes sense to me. So, if that is the case, what are the odds that those offended people don't like "Redskins" but like "Warriors"? Probably not great.

 

If we become the Warriors, it will probably need to be more of the fictional context (like the Titans or Giants) rather than something else. As much as I'd love to keep our imagery and tradition, I'd almost rather do something like that than just nuance it a little and stay in the crosshairs.

 

 

and that is basically what I'm getting at.  You have to drop the whole thing, because it's obvious that nothing Native American is ever going to be acceptable to many of these people.  I think we could name the team honoring our Warriors who have given the ultimate sacrifice.  Goes along with the Nationals theme (although I am an Orioles fan) and is nothing as cringe worthy as the Wizards. 

 

Besides, having a team honoring the Armed Forces in some way, would also be a giant **** YOU to our biggest rivals who aren't getting behind us on this.  How could a team honoring the Armed Forces not be considered "America's Team?"  Let's see, a team honoring America's war dead, or a team honoring hicks with big hats?  Easy choice there. 

Edited by Painkiller

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.