Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

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.  

 

It's such an odd question in a way that you could probably get whatever result you wanted based on the phrasing of the question. Are you offended? Should the name be changed? People can not be offended but still think the name should be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's such an odd question in a way that you could probably get whatever result you wanted based on the phrasing of the question. Are you offended? Should the name be changed? People can not be offended but still think the name should be changed.

That's really true, polling is one step above statistics in the game of making predetermined views seem true.  As for defining a native, the federal standard would have to apply not the LKB standard.  All due respect.

 

If Snyder were to undertake the huge project of trying to get a consensus among natives he would at the very least get some really good pr and it would satisfy both sides that he is trying to get to the bottom of the issue fairly.

Edited by KAOSkins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm sorry but this is absurd because the people who feel passionately enough to turn out and vote are those who are pushing the agenda. The 90% majority is silent and not motivated to defend. As such the results would be heavily weighted against the name.

As far as LKB's dictionary article, who cares?

90% of Native Americans polled say they are not offended by the name, what's more is that there are Native Americans who have used Redskins as the name for their own mascot. So you can quote the dictionary all day long, I'll just keep posting pics of Native American gymnasiums with "Redskins Pride" painted on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone happen to hear Stephen A Smith on First Take regarding the letter from Snyder?

got to give it to the man,, he's the first one to stand up and really speak truth from a truly open minded perspective.

I am a Stephen A fan,, i know a lot don't like him, but I do, and this cements it.

 

If you didn't hear it, as much as i hate to shill, we have it in it's entirety on the Bang Radio Hour this week, due out Thursday.

 

If you want to check it out, hit the banner below in my sig and give us a listen.

 

~Bang
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but this is absurd because the people who feel passionately enough to turn out and vote are those who are pushing the agenda. The 90% majority is silent and not motivated to defend. As such the results would be heavily weighted against the name.

As far as LKB's dictionary article, who cares?

90% of Native Americans polled say they are not offended by the name, what's more is that there are Native Americans who have used Redskins as the name for their own mascot. So you can quote the dictionary all day long, I'll just keep posting pics of Native American gymnasiums with "Redskins Pride" painted on the wall.

I'm sorry you think it's absurd, but it would be trying something. It's more proactive than sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you think it's absurd, but it would be trying something. It's more proactive than sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it.

 

I believe why he is saying it's absurd is simply because many NA's won't even bother to vote so the numbers looked skewed.

 

It's not an accurate perception.

 

I think LKB, saying NA's are basically living in certain areas is absurd. My family lives in NY, DC, Connecticut, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina.

 

Stay on the reservations and know our place in society ?  Give me a break. My Grandparents, Mother and I were the only ones even born in NY. And none of us on a reservation.

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, my Mother is 100% NA, myself 50%,

The bloodline goes through the Mother. My kids would not be considered NA's, Only my sisters children.  EDIT: So even though my children would be 25%- 50% they would not be considered NA's.

 

Redskins Fans...all of us except my brother...He is a Packers Fan.

Edited by Kosher Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Rush once say that Columbus saved the Indians? Collecting right wingers that no doubt have a long history of outrageously insulting quotes is going to do as much for the Redskins on this argument as George Marshall's wonderful record on racial sensitivity and acceptance. We need more credible allies on this topic like Walt "Red Hawk" Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Rush once say that Columbus saved the Indians? Collecting right wingers that no doubt have a long history of outrageously insulting quotes is going to do as much for the Redskins on this argument as George Marshall's wonderful record on racial sensitivity and acceptance. We need more credible allies on this topic like Walt "Red Hawk" Brown.

 

 

I wasn't siding with or against. Just food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... I believe the debate is morphing once again after the Costas "statement." Seems that the idea that redskins is offensive has not taken hold, or at least the polling information is out of the bag and into the public awareness. Now the argument is that redskins is "inappropriate" which allows everyone to jump into the ring and have a meaningful opinion. But the real question is still.... what makes the word inappropriate? Because its "offensive?" Nice try. Looks like we need to get another degree of separation in here. Maybe the name change crowd (ahem... journalists with low job security needing internet hits) could say the word is spelled wrong because there should be a space between Red and Skins, therefore making it inappropriate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Peter, you’ve been a huge writer for the magazine SI, you have been around forever now,” Russo said to King. “You are not a young kid. You have been at the top of your profession for a long time. The Redskins have had that name since 1935 – when we all know their player/coach was a Native American and that’s why they got the name the Redskins – and now all of a sudden in 2014, or 2013, Peter King or Bob Costas has a problem with it. Where were you ten years ago? Or where we you fifteen years ago? Why now all of a sudden has it dawned on you that the name might be offensive?”

“I wouldn’t say that it dawned on me all of a sudden,” King said. “It’s something that, as I said, over the last two or three years, gradually, I have come to dislike. I just don’t like it because it seems offensive. And now that I have the ability to be able to do something about it this year, I did something about it. So, if I didn’t have this site, if I were still working at Sports Illustrated as just a writer for the magazine, would I have taken this stand? I can’t tell you. All I know is that having my own site gave me more of the ability to say ‘I’m not going to do this.’ And again Chris, you know, I think as adults, there’s no shame in changing our mind about something. There’s no shame in saying, as I’ve done three or four times with Hall of Fame candidates – when I’ve been sitting in that room, and for years I may not have liked the guy or might not favor him for election – and then one year, somebody says something, or I think about it more. It doesn’t have to do with being pressured, it has to do with having an open mind. And I think that having an open mind has allowed me to think about this often over the years, and where as, I used to write it and not really like writing it but just wrote it and put it out of my mind, I just decided I wasn’t going to do it anymore.”

 

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo goes in with Peter King on the name.

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/15/chris-mad-dog-russo-interrogated-peter-king-for-anti-redskins-stance/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe why he is saying it's absurd is simply because many NA's won't even bother to vote so the numbers looked skewed.

 

It's not an accurate perception.

 

I think LKB, saying NA's are basically living in certain areas is absurd. My family lives in NY, DC, Connecticut, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina.

 

Stay on the reservations and know our place in society ?  Give me a break. My Grandparents, Mother and I were the only ones even born in NY. And none of us on a reservation.

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, my Mother is 100% NA, myself 50%,

The bloodline goes through the Mother. My kids would not be considered NA's, Only my sisters children.  EDIT: So even though my children would be 25%- 50% they would not be considered NA's.

 

Redskins Fans...all of us except my brother...He is a Packers Fan.

 

I guess that makes sense (voter turn out). The way I look at the issue is that I only care what Native Americans think. I love the name/tradition, but if it offends people then I'm in agreement that it should change. I don't care about the media, the president, or the NFL.

 

So, somehow I'd like to get an idea of the results if all Native Americans were simply asked: Do you want the Redskins to change their name?

 

Don't worry about asking who is offended, or who thinks it could be considered offensive, etc. There is too much gray area there. Just simply ask those who matter if they want the name changed. I guess logistically it's tough to organize, but that's the only metric I care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the self appointed race relation expert of es has spoken......lol

 

Shouldn't you be scouting Hedgesville's JV time right about now?

Did anyone happen to hear Stephen A Smith on First Take regarding the letter from Snyder?

got to give it to the man,, he's the first one to stand up and really speak truth from a truly open minded perspective.

I am a Stephen A fan,, i know a lot don't like him, but I do, and this cements it.

 

 

I haven't heard it. Last year, Smith called the name a slur. So, I'm curious what his opinion on the letter is.

 

 

 

So the other day I am watching "First Take" on ESPN (yeah, I must have been bored) and I hear the cuddly Stephen A. Smith and the lovable Skip Bayless as usual taking about something neither one of them are qualified or unbiased enough to speak on. They start ranting about a quote fromWashington Redskins owner Dan Snyder in an interview with USA Today. "We'll never change the name," Snyder said. "It's that simple. NEVER - you can use caps."

 

Stephen A. Smith says "I am disappointed. I know Daniel Snyder and I like him a great deal. But he is being openly defiant. This is a slur to Native Americans. Snyder's level of dismissiveness to me, should alarm all of us. We need to be sure we are cognizant and we are respectful and Daniel Snyder was not that."

http://voices.yahoo.com/redskin-nickname-controversy-dan-snyder-quote-response-12137714.html

Interesting take on all of this by Rush Limbaugh. Like him or hate him its a good take.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbAWhohR0Rs

 

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The tide is certainly turning.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Glenn Beck told me the time, I'd certainly check my watch first but having done so if it matched what he said then I'd say he was correct.

Having seen the "time" on this debate (Annenberg et al) then what's left except to say, "Yep, for once he's right?"

Or would you surrender, in spite of over-whelming evidence that the vast majority of people who are supposed to be offended aren't, all because some mediots wanted to sell more ads be fanning the flames of this controversy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes.  The last thing you want is Limbaugh and Beck on your side of a racial debate.

 

Have to agree with LKB here.  The tide has turned and I really don't even think it's a "debate" anymore.  I think the name is on borrowed time.  Snyder doesn't want to change it but he's not stupid.  The more people in the media start lambasting it and refusing to use it that hurts your brand.  He's a businessman.  The name is changing eventually.  I'd predict sooner rather than later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if NAs come out and say they are offended by the names "Cowboys" and "Bills" that would gain traction.  You know, names of people that actually did bad things to NAs.

 

Snyder wont change it without a court decision.  Not a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Glenn Beck told me the time, I'd certainly check my watch first but having done so if it matched what he said then I'd say he was correct.

Having seen the "time" on this debate (Annenberg et al) then what's left except to say, "Yep, for once he's right?"

Or would you surrender, in spite of over-whelming evidence that the vast majority of people who are supposed to be offended aren't, all because some mediots wanted to sell more ads be fanning the flames of this controversy?

 

I don't think the name is offensive. In all honesty, I'm not sure that's the overall tenor of this debate (though it seems to be going in that direction as more voices join the fray and make less sophisticated arguments). 

 

The real question is more along the lines of "Is the name appropriate?"

 

I've posted a lot in the the last two days because the issue has gone kind of crazy and I enjoy it when minor political issues go crazy. It's more fun than watching major issues like whether or not we should have a functioning government go crazy. So, I'll repeat my initial argument.

 

The word itself is probably offensive. However, the only true use of it in 2013 is in sports. And - in sports - the intent is not to offend. There is no bad intent with the Redskins. Having said that, I'm still not sure it is team nickname that should be in use any longer. In general, the idea of appropriating for entertainment images a culture that was decimated seems wrong. And using an out of date word to do so only adds to the problem.

 

Frankly, I don't understand why the Redskins were targeted before Chief Wahoo....because there is no defense of Chief Wahoo. They might as well have Amos n Andy as your logo. But, the NFL is bigger and Snyder is widely disliked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the name is offensive. In all honesty, I'm not sure that's the overall tenor of this debate (though it seems to be going in that direction as more voices join the fray and make less sophisticated arguments). 

 

The real question is more along the lines of "Is the name appropriate?"

 

I've posted a lot in the the last two days because the issue has gone kind of crazy and I enjoy it when minor political issues go crazy. It's more fun than watching major issues like whether or not we should have a functioning government go crazy. So, I'll repeat my initial argument.

 

The word itself is probably offensive. However, the only true use of it in 2013 is in sports. And - in sports - the intent is not to offend. There is no bad intent with the Redskins. Having said that, I'm still not sure it is team nickname that should be in use any longer. In general, the idea of appropriating for entertainment images a culture that was decimated seems wrong. And using an out of date word to do so only adds to the problem.

 

Frankly, I don't understand why the Redskins were targeted before Chief Wahoo....because there is no defense of Chief Wahoo. They might as well have Amos n Andy as your logo. But, the NFL is bigger and Snyder is widely disliked.

This is mainly what it's about... the Washington Post (or UnWise Mike) has always had a personaly vendetta against this man.  What makes matter worse is the losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow. kevin sheehan going off on 980 about the name- talking about native american high schools with 'redskins' mascot, and how its not the same as the n word.

 

never heard him go off like this before. 

 

good for him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Snyder wont change it without a court decision.  Not a chance.

 

..... and when asked what would happen, if he lost the federal trademark?

 

" We will never change it. "

 

 

Stephen A. Smith basically said that the polls do give some validity to Snyder's stance on the name.

Edited by Spearfeather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you find the results, I'd be curious to see how many Native Americans would be upset if we changed the name. Right now we're comparing offended vs. apathetic. It makes it tough to get a clear picture because it puts Snyder (or whomever) in a position where he has to say that he can tolerate offending x% of people. We hear anecdotal stories of so-and-so from the whatever tribe who believes the name honors his tribe's heritage. But I don't know if there are 8, 800, or 8,000 of those who hold that opinion.

 

If we could figure out the percentage of Native Americans who like the name and want it kept as honoring them, that's the percentage that should be bounced against the offended camp. I'm sure there's some sort of bell curve there, but if I knew that 10% were offended, 80% didn't really care, and 10% were proud/didn't want it to change, then it's easy enough to justify keeping things as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you been personally called out or attacked by media?  Even those who you do not talk to?

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.