• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      The home team fans are at home, these games no longer matter, and it’s probably better for the team to lose than it is to win.  It must be December in Washington.  Welcome to week 15!
       
      Redskins Inactive: 
      Colt McCoy  
      Trey Quinn 
      Quinton Dunbar  
      Josh Harvey-Clemons  
      Ross Pierschbacher  
      Brandon Scherff  
      Caleb Wilson  
       
      Eagles Inactive: 
      Nate Sudfeld  
      Nelson Agholor 
      Jordan Howard  
      Shareef Miller 
      Lane Johnson  
      Sua Opeta  
      Derek Barnet
       
      There are two camps for Redskins fans at this time of year.  Those that want to tank and those that want to win.  If this describes you, I want you to know something important. You’re wrong.  You should probably feel bad about it too, but that’s your business.  The right way to go about this, is simply to embrace the doublethink.  
       
      Before and after the game it’s perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that losing has its advantages.  It does and it is undeniable.  Afterall we could be talking about the difference between Chase Young being in a Redskins uniform, or not.  What we need for that to happen is simple.  Redskins lose out.  Giants beat the Dolphins and Redskins.  Dolphins beat the Bengals.  All of these things are perfectly reasonable outcomes.  We’re that close to having an elite pass rusher.   
       
      Before that happens, we have a game to play.  It is in this moment that we should embrace the other side of our demented doublethink.  While the game is being played, especially against a division opponent, fans should want their team to do well.  Assuming they have a soul and any decency.  There is just no way that I can root for the Eagles to beat the Redskins during a game.  If you are the type of fan that does this, I hope you find someone that can fix what has broken inside of you.   
       
      Pregame Prediction:  Redskins 23 – Eagles 30  
      More interesting game we are missing because we are still watching the Redskins:  Packers – Bears  
      Things I am snacking on:  Brownie.   
      Number of colons used:  Six.  (so far)  
       
      Check back for updates.  I’m going to wander around the room for a while and stretch my legs to get away from a certain well-known ESPN Eagle fan’s boring conversations that my ear phones aren’t blocking out entirely.
       
      1st Quarter Redskins 7 - 3 Eagles
      "The Closer" Haskins showed up for work early today and hit his former college teammate for a touchdown.  He really took the life out of this crowd in *checks notes* Fedex Field. 
       
      2nd Quarter Redskins 14 - 10 Eagles
      This quarter was defined by penalties.  The Redskins made the mistake of lightly hitting an Eagles tight end on the shoulder, and then another by tackling the Eagles QB around the waist.  Refs clearly didn't appreciate the Redskins playing football.
       
      This is the best half of football of Haskins pro career.  The Redskins passing offense as a whole has looked impressive, which... well it just shouldn't be.  Right?  Feels like a trap.  As soon as we start to feel good about it, BOOM they'll tear our hearts out. 
       
      I'll say this much though, Redskins receivers have been running around wide open throughout this first half.  The Redskins should have scored more than 14.
       
      Halftime:  If you had a choice between standing in a relatively long line for ice cream and cookies or nachos and hot dogs which would you choose?  I would go with ice cream.  Unfortunately I didn't realize there were two separate lines, and so I ended up with nachos and disappointment.  Also, I should probably mention Urban Meyer is here.  I bet he got the ice cream.   
       
      3rd Quarter Redskins 14 - 17 Eagles
      Wentz made a good throw, giving his team the lead, and it reminded me that Wentz was once a pretty good QB.  Hasn't looked like it often today.  The Eagles really haven't had a lot of open players for Wentz to throw to, but there is more to it than that.  Wentz looks slow. 
       
      Haskins has out played him through three quarters, and we haven't even reached Haskins best quarter. 
       
      4th Quarter Redskins 27 - 37 Eagles
      Some drunk Redskins fans sitting in front of the press box have recognized a Eagles fan that appears often on CNN and have started knocking on the glass to wave their hands and smile at him now the the Redskins have the lead.  These fans have apparently never learned not to tempt fate.
       
      Redskins defense played fairly well all game but picked the worst possible time to give up a long drive for a touchdown.  The Eagles offense came off the field with a four point lead and less than a minute left in the game.  The fumble return for a touchdown on the aborted hail marry attempt just added insult to injury.  Redskins come up short, for the eleventh time this season. 
       
      End of game thoughts.  Haskins actually looked like a real NFL QB for an entire NFL game.  Not just a drive here or there, but for an entire game Haskins looked like he belonged.  He looked like one of the reasons the Redskins might win the game.  He's shown flashes in the past but nothing like this.  A very encouraging sign for fans that believe he can be a part of the future here. 
       
      The Giants did their part to fall back in the draft, by absolutely dismantling the mighty Dolphins.  May the Giants be victorious, at least one more time this season.  We just need to lose to the Giants and have the Dolphins beat the Bengals, and the Redskins will be sitting alone at 3 wins.  Chase Young could happen.

       
       
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

As of this morning, I understand the Redskins will be dropping their name.  The name "Washington" has an excessive amount of negative stigmas associated with it (specifically in politcal world); thus it has become offensive to the Americans everywhere.

;)

Well the guy did walk around in tights like Peter Pan and wore a powdered wig. No way you should honor a person like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, redskin is used to describe a certain race based off war paint used and not actual skin color. That is why I say who cares if there are some offended. There are people that don't like to be called brown people but don't see an uproar over the browns. Why? Because it wasn't originated off an actual skin color

 

 

I have not heard any claim of the face paint angle from Daniel Snyder or anyone else for that matter. What am I missing here? 

This whole controversy has me thinking.., a bit of introspection, if you will... "What do we do as the Washington redskins nation to benefit or help Native Americans?"

I honestly don't know.

But... We number in the millions and can potentially make things happen quickly if we work together. Why don't we help the tribes in VA get Federal recognition? Is that something we could do? Is that something we should do?

If anything positive comes from this, it would be great for us to choose what we want to do rather than having someone tell us what we must do.

 

 

Check out my post (#1811) for what I thought was a really good solution that might even incorporate getting federal recognition. 

 

I am a little disappointed that nobody has replied about it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not heard any claim of the face paint angle from Daniel Snyder or anyone else for that matter. What am I missing here? 

 

 

Check out my post (#1811) for what I thought was a really good solution that might even incorporate getting federal recognition. 

 

I am a little disappointed that nobody has replied about it. :(

 

as far as the red paint thing, the official origin of the word, according to goddard, is that it was made up by native americans as a way to refer to themselves and for white people to refer to them. 

 

i liked your suggestions. probably number 2 on my list behind 'redmen'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a life long Cowboy fan, I set up an account here to urge all of you Redskin fans to Fight to keep your team name.   Do not let the PC crowd rob you of your tradition... Enough is enough.  The Redskins are a private enterprise and the name should be up to ownership with the fans support.  Tell these people including the President hands-off your team.   Good Luck and best wishes from Dallas.

You have made me re-think my crusade against the Cowboys name being offensive to fat kids. Kudos. :)

My problem with the face paint angle is the fact that people are running around and saying it as if it is fact when I have not seen any evidence that has suggested the name was coined after the face paint.

Edited by Fan since a Fetus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In looking at this, I wonder if the Reilly's column blowing up in his face the way it did pretty much ended this battle. I wonder if that gave Costas the push he needed to address this.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/10/14/for-redskins-name-change-is-a-question-of-when-not-if/

 

 

 

We’ve reached a tipping point. Costas didn’t cause that; he’s just a trailing indicator. Some journalists exist to articulate conventional wisdom, and some to shape it. The most influential among the shapers — Grantland’s Bill SimmonsSports Illustrated’s Peter King — have already been calling for a name change. What was for decades a fringe issue is now no longer. Even President Obama has indicated he thinks it’s time.The should-they-or-shouldn’t-they is now beside the point. It’s a question of when it happens and how effectively the transition is managed. Snyder has two choices.

 

First, he can dig in his heels. That’s been his approach so far, in an effort to protect the $131 million in brand value associated with the name, according to a FORBES estimate. As The New Republic’s Michael Schaffer notes, that value will dwindle over time as a Redskins logo takes on the flavor of a Confederate flag, embraced not so much for its historical resonance as for its symbol of anti-PC defiance. It will dwindle still further as more and more news organizations refuse to print or broadcast it.

 

At some point, the price of keeping it will exceed the price of changing it, and then the Redskins will become something else. Their revenues will take a hit for a year or two, and then they’ll rebound as fans buy new merchandise and acclimate to the new name. (That’s the pattern that’s played out at dozens of colleges that have changed their team names, whether for PC reasons or other ones.)

 

That’s one scenario. The other is that Snyder senses the direction public sentiment is trending and decides to get ahead of it by changing the name as soon as possible. The Redskins start their 2014 season with a new moniker and mascot. Everything from that point on unfolds exactly as in scenario one, except that Snyder gets credit for being a bit of a visionary and sensitive to the feelings of a historically aggrieved people, instead of being caricatured as a recalcitrant greedy jerk
. Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, yes, the battle is lost. As I mentioned before, the only way to keep the name is to dig in and just hope that all these media outlets eventually get bored and moved on. But the cross-section of people against the name is pretty remarkable.

 

You have the very definition of the old NFL media in Peter King refusing to use it. King doesn't report on the kickoff times unless Roger Goodell approves so his stance is - at the very least - tolerated by the league and maybe even encouraged.

 

You have Simmons and Deadspin (two outlets that have been engaged in a low level feud for years) coming out against the name. These two outlets more than anything shape the view of the under 35 crowd now. There's an entire generation of fans and writers who more or less are copying Simmons approach to watching sports.

 

You have Slate and its hoity toity NPR approach to sports.

 

You have the Post, which has been in a feud with Snyder forever, but is still the goddamn hometown paper.

 

And now you have Costas who is basically the Jim McKay of his day - mainstream as it gets. He will take a stand but only a relatively safe stand once he is sure that the winds are blowing in that direction already.

 

Generally speaking, this is the cross-section of the modern sports media. Usually at least two of these parties will be aligned against the others in some sort of new school/old school/modern/old/mainstream/alternative alignment. That doesn't exist. The only media voices supporting the name are essentially right wing political voices like Limbaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thought I had after reading some comments about Costas' take on Sunday night...

 

It seems like there are some Native Americans who are offended. That's logical and a given. It also seems like there is a majority of Native Americans who are not offended. That's also a given. Maybe we should take this decision entirely out of Whitey's hands and ask a slightly different question of the Native American community: Do you want the Redskins to change their name?

 

We've been asking for a ratio of offended vs. non-offended, but that's not ever going to help. That still ultimately means that someone who isn't a Native American has to decide how many people he is comfortable offending. For example, if only 8% of Native Americans are offended, the name won't change. There's never going to be clear go/no-go criteria.

 

One of the comments in the Washington Post mentioned a tribe in Montana who weren't just OK with the name, but would be unhappy to see it changed. Maybe that's the side that we should be weighing against the offended people?

 

If a poll was conducted that asked Native Americans if they wanted the name changed (not whether or not they are offended), shouldn't everyone agree that following that direction would have the best interests of Native Americans in mind? I think it would be much closer, but if 61% of Native Americans answered that they would prefer to be represented by a NFL franchise named the Redskins, we are listening to the affected parties by keeping the name. If it came back the other way, it would be difficult to defend a decision to keep the name. It removes the potential to massage or spin the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We've been asking for a ratio of offended vs. non-offended, but that's not ever going to help. That still ultimately means that someone who isn't a Native American has to decide how many people he is comfortable offending. For example, if only 8% of Native Americans are offended, the name won't change. There's never going to be clear go/no-go criteria.

 

One of the comments in the Washington Post mentioned a tribe in Montana who weren't just OK with the name, but would be unhappy to see it changed. Maybe that's the side that we should be weighing against the offended people?

 

 

Seemingly every time the Redskins or a supporter of the name goes down this path, they get burned.

 

We have a Native American chief! He's on board.

 

Turns out, he is neither a Native American nor a chief.

 

Wait! Rick Reilly's father in law is a Native American chief! He supports us!

 

Actually, he is against the name.

 

The Red Cloud Indian School! We went to them! They designed the logo! They support us!

 

The Red Cloud Indian School is against the name.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Wait! Good news: Glenn Beck strongly supports the name.

 

Forget what I said. The worst is over. The name will stay forever.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/11/do-you-know-the-history-behind-the-name-washington-redskins/#

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemingly every time the Redskins or a supporter of the name goes down this path, they get burned.

 

We have a Native American chief! He's on board.

 

Turns out, he is neither a Native American nor a chief.

 

Wait! Rick Reilly's father in law is a Native American chief! He supports us!

 

Actually, he is against the name.

 

The Red Cloud Indian School! We went to them! They designed the logo! They support us!

 

The Red Cloud Indian School is against the name.

 

But those are cases where someone is trying to provide anecdotal evidence. It puts far too much significance on the details of each individual case.

 

Make this a huge event...come one, come all and cast your vote. Open up voting for a week and tally the numbers, then you are truly doing what most NAs want you to do. If you want to make it even a little easier to authenticate, then have each active tribe submit one vote or something.

 

However the specific mechanics work out, you have a quantifiable way of justifying your actions. You aren't hoping to tell the story of some specific case lost in the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fight isn't over by any stretch. LKB you can run the white flag up if you want, but the rest of us aren't quite so afraid, neither are we willing to surrender to a media driven feeding frenzy. I had an hour long discussion with friends of mine the wife is 100% Native American, he married into the tribe, there is a difference between being against the name, and actively fighting against the name.

I will not buckle to this fabricated strawman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fight isn't over by any stretch. LKB you can run the white flag up if you want, but the rest of us aren't quite so afraid, neither are we willing to surrender to a media driven feeding frenzy. I had an hour long discussion with friends of mine the wife is 100% Native American, he married into the tribe, there is a difference between being against the name, and actively fighting against the name.

I will not buckle to this fabricated strawman!

 

If they were able to do what I proposed in post 1833, would you accept whatever comes? If the percentage of Native Americans who want the name changed was > 50%, would you support a change? I know that I would. I'm not really going to lose any sleep with either direction as long as it comes from the people who should care about the name.

 

I just want the discussion to be over and the new name to be something that doesn't suck (Wizards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful... If there is one guy that I was just dying to have defending the Redskins it was Glenn Friggin Beck. 

 

That's the direction this was heading. Reilly was probably the last non-affiliated "mainstream" voice you are going to have arguing strongly in favor of the name. And he may have inadvertantly sealed its fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although my resistance to a name-change is being slowly eroded by the media and the politically correct climate of America, I would like to make a comment on Costas.

 

He added NOTHING new to the argument. He provided not a single new point or unique view. All Bob Costas did was use a prime time nationally-broadcast podium to proclaim what he believes is his own moral "high ground."

 

I'm not arguing with his point. I'm only asking WHY he felt the need to re-make a point that had already been made a thousand times in 2 or 3 decades. If he had anything new or novel to say about the issue then I could justify his grandstand. He didn't have jack squat.

 

He's a cardboard stooge with a bland, unoriginal delivery of an already-stated (ad nauseum) point of view. His half time piece was unnecessary and uninformative.

Edited by Chachie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, yes, the battle is lost. As I mentioned before, the only way to keep the name is to dig in and just hope that all these media outlets eventually get bored and moved on. But the cross-section of people against the name is pretty remarkable.

 

You have the very definition of the old NFL media in Peter King refusing to use it. King doesn't report on the kickoff times unless Roger Goodell approves so his stance is - at the very least - tolerated by the league and maybe even encouraged.

 

You have Simmons and Deadspin (two outlets that have been engaged in a low level feud for years) coming out against the name. These two outlets more than anything shape the view of the under 35 crowd now. There's an entire generation of fans and writers who more or less are copying Simmons approach to watching sports.

 

You have Slate and its hoity toity NPR approach to sports.

 

You have the Post, which has been in a feud with Snyder forever, but is still the goddamn hometown paper.

 

And now you have Costas who is basically the Jim McKay of his day - mainstream as it gets. He will take a stand but only a relatively safe stand once he is sure that the winds are blowing in that direction already.

 

Generally speaking, this is the cross-section of the modern sports media. Usually at least two of these parties will be aligned against the others in some sort of new school/old school/modern/old/mainstream/alternative alignment. That doesn't exist. The only media voices supporting the name are essentially right wing political voices like Limbaugh.

Yes, what you have is a loud group of people telling us that the name should be offensive to Native Americans.  What we DONT have, however, is any evidence that the term ACTUALLY IS offensive. 

 

According the mediots, we're supposed to accept that the term is a racial slur.  Show me the proof of that.  WHere has it been used as such?  Are the rednecks around Indian Reservations calling the NAs "redskins" in the same manner that the rednecks in the deep south still drop the N word?

 

I understand that some are offended by the name.  But how many need to claim offense before a team is forced to change?  Is 1 person enough?  Is it a thousand?  A million?

 

I refuse to accept tha notion that the name should be changed because blowhards like Peter King think Native Americans should be offended by it.  His personal animosity towards the Skins is well known and documented (Art Monk).  This is just his latest hit.  And he brought along a cavalry of Snyder Haters to join the lynching.

 

I say lets go the other way.  Go all in.  Bring back the headdresses for the band.  Have tomahawk carrying dancing girls in Native American garb at halftime and re install the broken english into the fight song.  And tell the world to kiss our collective ass.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were able to do what I proposed in post 1833, would you accept whatever comes? If the percentage of Native Americans who want the name changed was > 50%, would you support a change? I know that I would. I'm not really going to lose any sleep with either direction as long as it comes from the people who should care about the name.

 

I just want the discussion to be over and the new name to be something that doesn't suck (Wizards).

You mean a popular vote? Heck no!

This is America, and as a private citizen you don't let everyone else determine what to do with your freedom.

Annenberg showed us 90% have no problem with the name, that's enough for me and I won't be bullied by some do gooding libs with over blown white guilt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I give you: The Dictionary.

 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin

 

definition of redskin in English
redskin
Syllabification: (red·skin)
Pronunciation: /ˈredˌskin/
noun dated offensive
  • an American Indian.

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive.American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (CheyenneNez Percé, etc.).

red·skin noun \ˈred-ˌskin\
Definition of REDSKINusually offensive
First Known Use of REDSKIN
1699

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a popular vote? Heck no!

This is America, and as a private citizen you don't let everyone else determine what to do with your freedom.

Annenberg showed us 90% have no problem with the name, that's enough for me and I won't be bullied by some do gooding libs with over blown white guilt.

 

A popular vote of just Native Americans, not of anyone on this planet. Essentially, ask those who could be offended (as we can all agree the possibility exists) if they want a team called the Redskins or not. It provides a more clear direction than "are you offended" by the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According the mediots, we're supposed to accept that the term is a racial slur.  Show me the proof of that.  WHere has it been used as such?  Are the rednecks around Indian Reservations calling the NAs "redskins" in the same manner that the rednecks in the deep south still drop the N word?

 

I understand that some are offended by the name.  But how many need to claim offense before a team is forced to change?  Is 1 person enough?  Is it a thousand?  A million?

 

I refuse to accept tha notion that the name should be changed because blowhards like Peter King think Native Americans should be offended by it.  His personal animosity towards the Skins is well known and documented (Art Monk).  This is just his latest hit.  And he brought along a cavalry of Snyder Haters to join the lynching.

 

The issue I have with polling "Native Americans" is that there are less than 3 million self-identified Native Americans in this country and there is a pretty good chance that a lot of them are exaggerating their ethnicity. There are over 500 federally recognized tribes for these 3 million people. I honestly don't know what an accurate poll would look like.

 

(I actually find a lot of the anecdotal evidence that people provide on this issue to be meaningless because I generally don't believe anyone who claims to be Native - unless they live in Arizona, New Mexico or the Dakotas. But that's neither here nor there).

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I have with polling "Native Americans" is that there are less than 3 million self-identified Native Americans in this country and there is a pretty good chance that a lot of them are exaggerating their ethnicity. There are over 500 federally recognized tribes for these 3 million people. I honestly don't know what an accurate poll would look like.

 

(I actually find a lot of the anecdotal evidence that people provide on this issue to be meaningless because I generally don't believe anyone who claims to be Native - unless they live in Arizona, New Mexico or the Dakotas. But that's neither here nor there).

 

Then we should accept what exactly as a determination of whether or not NAs are actually offended by it?

 

This is an assault on the team BECAUSE of the team.  Not because anyone is actually offended by the name.  Otherwise those same mediots would be advocating changing the name of the state of Oklahoma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again, I give you: The Dictionary.

 

 

 

Ives Goddard and other historians have a much different account of the name and their research is more current. The dictionary left out the sports team usage of the name. Their definition of the word sates that it is very offensive, but how can that be true when the majority of the supposed offended actually are not (that includes both Native Americans and all Americans)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again, I give you: The Dictionary.

 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin

 

definition of redskin in English

redskin

Syllabification: (red·skin)
Pronunciation: /ˈredˌskin/
noun dated offensive
  • an American Indian.

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive.American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (CheyenneNez Percé, etc.).

red·skin  noun \ˈred-ˌskin\
 
 
 
Definition of REDSKIN usually offensive
First Known Use of REDSKIN
1699

 

yeah, about that 1699 letter....

The letter is pretty much debunked from the beginning

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if this got posted yesterday; I didn't see it:

http://wtvr.com/2013/10/14/virginia-tribes-with-unusual-reaction-to-redskins-name-controversy/

 

Edit - Aaaaaand it was already...I should've searched for the domain from the link.  My bad.

 

"Walt “Red Hawk” Brown, chief of Virginia’s Cheroenhaka Nottoway Tribe, says he embraces Native American symbols and words being incorporated into this country’s social fabric and doesn’t find the term “Redskins” offensive.

...

While Brown acknowledges that the Redskins name could be considered offensive, particularly by Western and Canadian tribes, he says he considers the Redskins name  an honor- not a slur.

 
“It’s a great honor,” Brown says.
Edited by Stugein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I have with polling "Native Americans" is that there are less than 3 million self-identified Native Americans in this country and there is a pretty good chance that a lot of them are exaggerating their ethnicity. There are over 500 federally recognized tribes for these 3 million people. I honestly don't know what an accurate poll would look like.

 

(I actually find a lot of the anecdotal evidence that people provide on this issue to be meaningless because I generally don't believe anyone who claims to be Native - unless they live in Arizona, New Mexico or the Dakotas. But that's neither here nor there).

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how to do it. I'm not offering a complete solution, but there have to be people who know how to design an effective poll or vote, right?

 

I guess I was more providing the metric that would put to bed the "offensive" debate. If every Native American in the US that you could find had a vote, the decision should be pretty simple. If more of them want a change, change it. If more of them would prefer the name stays, keep it. I'm baking into this suggestion the assumption that I can trust the results.

 

My guess is that more Native Americans would prefer a different name. There is a difference between "being offended by" and "not liking" a name. This would truly flush out how many Native Americans like the representation and how many are uncomfortable with the name. As I see it personally, this would provide our road map.  

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.