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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Then what about the entire group of Native Americans including myself that supports this team? 

 

Irrelevant, according to the TTAB (who rescinded the federal trademark registration). As long as enough NAs are offended, even if it's not a majority, that's all that matters.

Well it looks like Wise's rant about the GPM section at FedEx has caught on: http://deadspin.com/no-name-is-really-sacred-to-dan-snyder-1595841512?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+deadspin%2Ffull+%28Deadspin%29

 

 

 

What's next, change the name of Washington, D.C. because George Washington was a slave owner?

 

Deadspin doesn't count as "catching on"...when it comes to the Redskins, they might as well be clones of Wise.

[nemocystem]

It's really rather simple. Etymology, & historical facts either sre, or are not relevant & empirical in this discussion.

If yes, then let's discuss those particulars, & come to a conclusive resolution. If no, then EVERY SINGLE WORD IS UP FOR DEBATE UNDER THESE STANDARDS. I. This world, language falls apart..it means little. Existentialist ideology rules the terminology of the day, & agendas can/will run rampant in favor of data, & hundreds of years of scientifically adjudged vernacular.

It IS a slippery slope because to ignore the facts in any situation us to condone such behavior in continued like practice.

As I often tell my fellow NA's in this discussion. ..this whole situation outlines the 1 major problem, not only with our society. ..but specifically within our community. Education. We should be fighting tooth & nail to improve the quality & availability of education on tribal lands. This is usually met with a nod, & an "I will take this point to heart brother."

[elkabong82]

So who decides what is related? You, I suppose, being that you've already decided that past transgressions are unrelated. You decide for them, because you like a football team name. Sure that works in this echo chamber of a message board but that's going to be seem in a vastly different light out in the world dealing with real people with spoken words.

What you don't seem to get is that you get no say in what offends them. None at all. Staring down your nose at people and lecturing them on what should and shouldn't offend them is bad advice and it sure as hell doesn't spark any sort of dialogue. Well, perhaps if they were particularly forgiving if your tone deaf approach.

If anything you'd be better off simply stating that you've read up on the issue and that you mean no offense and genuinely believe the team also means no offense. Speak for yourself and do not launch into an interrogation and lecture on the validity of their reasoning. If they invite you to go over things point by point proceed with respect and caution. Blundering into an unintended insult is to be avoided.

Do not accuse them of guilt tripping.

 

Logic and reasoning decide what is related, as used by the people having the discussion. Care to explain exactly what a football team has to do with past transgressions? If there is a strong connection then being asked to say what it is shouldn't be very hard to do.

 

What you don't seem to get is that when someone says I need to change or the team needs to change because of that offense, then I absolutely get a say. There has to be a valid justification. Discussing the issue isn't lecturing or talking down, you only view it that way because you believe that their opinions should go unchallenged based on their race.

 

I'll thank you not to tell me how to have a discussion with someone when your methods only encourage being dictated to and mine actually want a discussion. Case in point, you're interpreting a discussion on the matter as "interrogation and lecture" simply because I dare to find out more and may disagree. My method may actually change minds or at least have two sides better understanding each other, your method is to be afraid to disagree with someone because they are of another race and are claiming offense.

 

So tell me, when some African Americans initially said they were offended by the Wizards basketball name and logo because it reminded them of the KKK, should the team have just accepted that offense, not challenged it, and changed the name? If a black person had said that to you when you were wearing Wizards gear (hypothetical), would you just say that you mean no offense, or would you try to actually discuss it with them?

[Boss_Hogg]

Wise attacked another Native American Redskins fan. He's threatened to have her tribe turn against her.

 

This was totally unprovoked.

 

[planter]

Huly, the implication from many is that even as a Native American you are ignorant and uniformed. You should be offended by the name, and you should listen to those that can educate you including people of other races.

To me that concept is more insulting than a name could ever be.

Total B.S.

IF significant numbers of NAs are offended by the term "Redskins" it very well might be changed. I'm giving it no more than 24 months...

[Destino]

Then what about the entire group of Native Americans including myself that supports this team?

Personally? I thank you and hope that with your support and others like yourself the tide can be turned and the team can keep the name and be thought respectful.

Wise attacked another Native American Redskins fan. He's threatened to have her tribe turn against her.

This was totally unprovoked.

Is that what he threatened? He asked it as a question and implied doing so made him Dan Snyder. I have no idea what that means. Maybe your interpretation of UnWise Mike's idiocy is right but I can't tell. That guy needs to find a new city to to save from themselves.

[elkabong82]

The claim that they were named after a Native American coach has been brought into question by GPMs own words. That coach actually being Native American has also been questioned and the evidence is significant that he was not.

I thought the most recent poll showed otherwise? Have we just decided that one didn't happen because it was flawed, but embraced the earlier flawed one because it was bigger? I might have missed some news.

 

The evidence, brought up by Olbermann, is shoddy. On the surface it seems to support him but it doesn't hold up to logic.

 

Why do so many subsequent articles have GPM saying Dietz and the NA players are a reason for keeping the theme? The article can easily be interpreted as GPM saying they weren't the reason he specifically chose Redskins. Since he planned to use Dietz to market the theme, and since Dietz was hired in March, the name was changed in July, and there are pictures of stationary with Dietz's name on it and the Braves name and logo, it's clear that Dietz was hired before the name was changed and the plan to have him recruit NA players was in place before the name change as well, so Dietz and the players certainly were a reason for keeping the NA theme when the team changed names, and GPM had said such.

 

Why he specifically chose Redskins, that had nothing to do with Dietz and the players and everything to do with marketing strategy of the NFL at the time of having teams be named after the popular MLB teams. In 1932 you had NFL teams: NY Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates, we had just changed from the Boston Braves, you had the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Cincinnati Reds. Marshall couldn't name the team the Red Sox because he had invested in selling the Native American theme, so he compromised with Redskins. So moving to Fenway and wanting a name similar to Red Sox is why GPM chose Redskins. But Dietz and the NA players are clearly why he chose to keep the theme.

 

Dietz' ancestry is still not fully known. In the trial his mother tearfully claimed that Dietz was a child from a Sioux woman his father had cheated with, so it was her word vs. some on the reservation who could have been honest but did have incentive to lie just like Dietz might have had. After the trial he went about repairing his image and he coached for a Native American college, Haskell, before joining the Braves, so clearly there were people, including NAs, who believed he was Native American and clearly GPM believed he was, or at least enough people believed he was to where GPM could say he had hired a NA coach for his NA themed team.

 

The more recent poll, if you're referring to the one in San Diego, CA then yes, it was laughably flawed so much so that mainstream didn't even pick it up. Annenberg results are skewed so heavily at 90% that the minor flaws, such as relying on self-identification, and it being 10 years old, aren't enough to alter the results enough to where it's anywhere close to 50%.

Wise attacked another Native American Redskins fan. He's threatened to have her tribe turn against her.

 

This was totally unprovoked.

 

 

Wow, that's pathetic. I didn't think Wise was capable of being any more despicable but there you have it.

[planter]

To the "no name change" folks which is a legitimate "alternative" in the "negotiations":

IF you had to concede one issue among the name, logo, or fight song which would go

If you can't or refuse to answer the question you may be putting ALL your eggs in one basket - NOT a good negotiating position...

[jaybrant]

Wise attacked another Native American Redskins fan. He's threatened to have her tribe turn against her.

 

This was totally unprovoked.

 

 

Wow. That's just ridiculous. From what I read on her twitter and FB, she seems really well-informed. Probably why he attacked first and then blocked her. She won't be able to go back at him and make him look like an idiot.

[elkabong82]

Wow. That's just ridiculous. From what I read on her twitter and FB, she seems really well-informed. Probably why he attacked first and then blocked her. She won't be able to go back at him and make him look like an idiot.

 

He does that just fine on his own.

[Destino]

Logic and reasoning decide what is related, as used by the people having the discussion. Care to explain exactly what a football team has to do with past transgressions? If there is a strong connection then being asked to say what it is shouldn't be very hard to do.

Past transgressions can alter speech. It can color words and attach bitterness to them. Native American being dictated to by Americans and Europeans that saw themselves as superior and knowing better affects the tone of discussions like this one. What exactly is illogical and unreasonable about any of that?

What you don't seem to get is that when someone says I need to change or the team needs to change because of that offense, then I absolutely get a say. There has to be a valid justification. Discussing the issue isn't lecturing or talking down, you only view it that way because you believe that their opinions should go unchallenged based on their race.

I agree that discussions are possible without coming across as lecturing and arrogant. I think your manner of doing so, as you communicated in the post that started this discussion, does come across that way. It presumes a position of authority on the issue and seeks to diminish arguments that you dislike simply because you've decided they are invalid.

I'll thank you not to tell me how to have a discussion with someone when your methods only encourage being dictated to and mine actually want a discussion. Case in point, you're interpreting a discussion on the matter as "interrogation and lecture" simply because I dare to find out more and may disagree. My method may actually change minds or at least have two sides better understanding each other, your method is to be afraid to disagree with someone because they are of another race and are claiming offense.

Your "method" is a list of canned replies similar to what a telemarketer would have pinned to their cubicle wall. Want to build bridges? Start by dropping your assumptions and ask an open ended question and listen. Listen without bias. Hear them out without holding responses in your head and try to find some empathy and common ground. Once you've established that you aren't intent on steam rolling over them or declaring their arguments nothing more than guilt trips, a dialogue without animosity might be possible. These issues are delicate and when you seek to deal with them face to face in the real world, it's best not to behave like you would on an Internet forum surrounded by supporters.

That's my opinion. I'm sure your way could be just as good.

So tell me, when some African Americans initially said they were offended by the Wizards basketball name and logo because it reminded them of the KKK, should the team have just accepted that offense, not challenged it, and changed the name?

absolutely. Think of the pain and misery that could have been avoided. Have you seen the gold jerseys?

If a black person had said that to you when you were wearing Wizards gear (hypothetical), would you just say that you mean no offense, or would you try to actually discuss it with them?

id have said "I hate this horrible logo too, where can I join your group to get it changed?"

[Predicto]

Then what about the entire group of Native Americans including myself that supports this team? 

 

I support this team too.  They are my team.

 

I'm just thinking its time to use a different word.

 

the difference is one side has facts.  The other tries to illicit an emotional response built on fallacies and outright lies.  

 

Rubbish.

 

It is a FACT that language usage changes over time, and it is a FACT that the word Redskin is defined in almost every dictionary as an outmoded or disfavored term to refer to a Native American, and sometimes as a slur.   I have put the links up here before.  

 

You want to rely on different facts, the ones that favor your preferred result.  That is fine.  But stop denigrating those who focus on different facts.  

I guess I'm really not done posting in this thread.  Predicto you are pretty smart person from what i can tell.  You do realize the same reason you just applied to change the name, could just as easily be applied to the other side as well.

 

It is just the name of a football team, so why is it so damn important that it be changed?  

 

It isn't the most important issue in the world.  I'm not joining any protests.   But it is what we are discussing right now, and in my opinion, it's time to change.

nobody wants this more than me...but what is right is right, and we can't just give in on this.  

 

WHY can't we give in on this?   

I think it is pretty clear that the name was changed to Redskins to keep the logo from the Braves.  

 

I thought the name was changed to Redskins to try to get some of the positive vibe of the most popular team in Boston at the time, the Red Sox.  

 

Of course, it doesn't matter either way to me, because parsing the history (which is incredibly unclear) doesn't change the most salient fact - which is that the word has become outmoded in 2014, even if it was ok in 1932.  

 

Most salient fact for ME, I mean.   People here obviously disagree.   

It's really rather simple. Etymology, & historical facts either sre, or are not relevant & empirical in this discussion.

If yes, then let's discuss those particulars, & come to a conclusive resolution. If no, then EVERY SINGLE WORD IS UP FOR DEBATE UNDER THESE STANDARDS. I. This world, language falls apart..it means little. Existentialist ideology rules the terminology of the day, & agendas can/will run rampant in favor of data, & hundreds of years of scientifically adjudged vernacular.

It IS a slippery slope because to ignore the facts in any situation us to condone such behavior in continued like practice.

 

 

Jesus, what nonsense.  Language does change.  It always has.  It is not a sinister process that needs to be fought or the world falls apart.

 

Go call the woman making you a latte at Starbucks a "wench."   Used to be a perfectly good word for a serving girl.   Now it isn't.  And we haven't gone into an existential crisis because of it.   

[RedskinsFan44]

 

I thought the name was changed to Redskins to try to get some of the positive vibe of the most popular team in Boston at the time, the Red Sox.  

 

Both, team moved from Braves stadium to Fenway, changed name to tie in to Red Sox, kept NA theme to avoid changing logo/ uniforms.  If he had just moved directly to DC we would be the Braves and probably the Indians would be the primary target.

 

Add:  I think getting the facts right in the debate is important, no matter which side you take. So Harjo using the scalp rhetoric in an article a week ago when she has been called on it multiple times over the years is pretty despicable IMO.  But yeah, the exact reason the team was named "Redskins" is pretty low in importance as long as we can agree it is a reference to NAs and not scalps.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

To the "no name change" folks which is a legitimate "alternative" in the "negotiations":

IF you had to concede one issue among the name, logo, or fight song which would go

If you can't or refuse to answer the question you may be putting ALL your eggs in one basket - NOT a good negotiating position...

 

It's not about negotiation, though. This isn't a ploy to get a 10% raise lol...

 

The Skins/Snyder aren't trying to figure out how much of their brand identity they can keep while making the protesting Native Americans happy, and neither are the fans (nor should they be). And the protesting NAs aren't gonna prop their feet up and say "Mission Accomplished" if we change the name to Braves or Warriors or anything along those lines yet keep the emblem and fight song, and fans still wear face paint and feathered headdresses. It's all or nothing on both sides.

[CrypticVillain]

It is a FACT that language usage changes over time, and it is a FACT that the word Redskin is defined in almost every dictionary as an outmoded or disfavored term to refer to a Native American, and sometimes as a slur.   I have put the links up here before.

 

You keep bringing up the dictionary, and the last time you brought it up, I posted this...

Yes, the word can be used as a slur. I get it. But so can any other word in the English language. 

 

Just look at the word ****(the b word). The first definition in the dictionary is the female dog. But when we hear the word ****(the b word), I can guarantee you we're not thinking about a female dog.

 

The dictionary is not the end all be all in this debate. Especially when this specific word has gone through so many changes recently...

In just the past 25 years, "redskin" has undergone something of an evolution in English lexicography.

In 1976 (American Heritage, 1092) it was defined simply as "Informal. A North American Indian," with no mention of offensiveness or disparagement.

By 1989 (Oxford English, 429) it had become "A North American Indian. (Not the preferred term)."

In 1993 (Random House, 1618) it was "Slang (often disparaging and offensive). A North American Indian."

Now in 2000 (American Heritage), it has evolved into the more unequivocal "Offensive slang. Used as a disparaging term for a Native American."

Not one of those definitions mentions the football team name even though when most hear the word "Redskins", the first thing they would think about is the name of the football team from Washington, DC.

 

Here's a word in the dictionary that doesn't have any controversy surrounding it:

"slur" an insulting or disparaging remark.(taken from merriam-webster.com) 

Based on that definition, any word could be used as a slur. But again, it's based on context. (second time I used that word in this thread today.)

 

Tell me anytime the word "n-word" (not "n-word"), wetback, spic, prairie "n-word", was used and it was not meant as a slur.

 

I can give you plenty of times the word Redskin was not used as a slur by Native Americans and Non-Natives alike.

 

It's about context. (Third times a charm?)

[CrypticVillain]

Wrong thread....

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

You're kinda proving his point for him. He's saying that language changes as time moves on and what you brought up reflects that.

[Predicto]

Both, team moved from Braves stadium to Fenway, changed name to tie in to Red Sox, kept NA theme to avoid changing logo/ uniforms.  If he had just moved directly to DC we would be the Braves and probably the Indians would be the primary target.

 

Add:  I think getting the facts right in the debate is important, no matter which side you take. So Harjo using the scalp rhetoric in an article a week ago when she has been called on it multiple times over the years is pretty despicable IMO.  But yeah, the exact reason the team was named "Redskins" is pretty low in importance as long as we can agree it is a reference to NAs and not scalps.

 

I can't stand Harjo, and I can agree that the name had nothing, zero, zip, to do with scalps.

 

But that is a meaningless fact to me.  I care about what the word redskin means in 2014.    

It's not about negotiation, though. This isn't a ploy to get a 10% raise lol...

 

The Skins/Snyder aren't trying to figure out how much of their brand identity they can keep while making the protesting Native Americans happy, and neither are the fans (nor should they be). And the protesting NAs aren't gonna prop their feet up and say "Mission Accomplished" if we change the name to Braves or Warriors or anything along those lines yet keep the emblem and fight song, and fans still wear face paint and feathered headdresses. It's all or nothing on both sides.

 

 

I don't agree.  That's not how I see it, and I have discussed it with lots of 49er and Eagles fans who also don't think so.   They say the logo is fine, but the word "redskin" is questionable.   I don't know any Native Americans, but I know lots of fans of other teams.  

 

I'm not concerned with satisfying Susan Harjo.  She's not in it to be satisfied.  I'm concerned with doing the right thing, as I understand it.

 

 

 

Tell me anytime the word "n-word" (not "n-word"), wetback, spic, prairie "n-word", was used and it was not meant as a slur.

 

 

 

 

I never claimed it was equivalent to the n-word.  

 

It is equivalent to calling a black man a "colored boy."  Or calling a waitress a  "wench."  Those terms used to be ok.  Your grandfather used "coloreds."   Your great, great, great, great grandfather used "wench."   Those terms used to be just fine.

 

They no longer are.   Same with redskin. 

[CrypticVillain]

I never claimed it was equivalent to the n-word.  

 

It is equivalent to calling a black man a "colored boy."  Or calling a waitress a  "wench."  Those terms used to be ok.  Your grandfather used "coloreds."   Your great, great, great, great grandfather used "wench."   Those terms used to be just fine.

 

They no longer are.   Same with redskin. 

I wasn't specifically talking to you when referencing the word being compared to the n-word, it just flowed well with my post and I wasn't stopping. 

 

I don't think my great-grandfather used colored... Mainly because he was the colored one. lol

 

I'm with you with the word wench. I remember I was younger, watch this old movie and the dude told the lady, "Hello, my fair wench." That wouldn't really fly today. lol

 

I hear with you're saying though, but if words can change in a negative way, why can't they change back to a positive way?

If anything, I think this name debate will cost the word "Redskin" to be more negative than it was before the debate got hot. 

You're kinda proving his point for him. He's saying that language changes as time moves on and what you brought up reflects that.

If the definition of the word Redskin changed from a term of empowerment to a word of discouragement, the Native Americans sure aren't reflecting that change. 

[Bang]

 

 

They no longer are.   Same with redskin. 

See, it's been my experience that the word Redskin is associated almost universally anymore with the football team.

 

Just my own limited personal experience on it.

 

~Bang

[planter]

"It's not about negotiation..."

I can tell

"The Skins/Snyder aren't trying to figure out how much of their brand identity they can keep..."

Oh?

[Destino]

The evidence, brought up by Olbermann, is shoddy. On the surface it seems to support him but it doesn't hold up to logic.

 

Why do so many subsequent articles have GPM saying Dietz and the NA players are a reason for keeping the theme? The article can easily be interpreted as GPM saying they weren't the reason he specifically chose Redskins. Since he planned to use Dietz to market the theme, and since Dietz was hired in March, the name was changed in July, and there are pictures of stationary with Dietz's name on it and the Braves name and logo, it's clear that Dietz was hired before the name was changed and the plan to have him recruit NA players was in place before the name change as well, so Dietz and the players certainly were a reason for keeping the NA theme when the team changed names, and GPM had said such.

 

Why he specifically chose Redskins, that had nothing to do with Dietz and the players and everything to do with marketing strategy of the NFL at the time of having teams be named after the popular MLB teams. In 1932 you had NFL teams: NY Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates, we had just changed from the Boston Braves, you had the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Cincinnati Reds. Marshall couldn't name the team the Red Sox because he had invested in selling the Native American theme, so he compromised with Redskins. So moving to Fenway and wanting a name similar to Red Sox is why GPM chose Redskins. But Dietz and the NA players are clearly why he chose to keep the theme.

 

What you've just said is that he chose the name as a marketing strategy and that he hired native americans to market a theme.  Where in that does "he chose the name to honor his native american head coach" fit in?  

 

 

 

Dietz' ancestry is still not fully known. In the trial his mother tearfully claimed that Dietz was a child from a Sioux woman his father had cheated with, so it was her word vs. some on the reservation who could have been honest but did have incentive to lie just like Dietz might have had. After the trial he went about repairing his image and he coached for a Native American college, Haskell, before joining the Braves, so clearly there were people, including NAs, who believed he was Native American and clearly GPM believed he was, or at least enough people believed he was to where GPM could say he had hired a NA coach for his NA themed team.

So was he stolen from a woman on a reservation?  His birth certificate and the charges brought against him by the government speak to his NOT being Native American.  That's certainly greater than he said, she said.  Also according to what I've read none of the Indians on the reservation he claimed to belong to recognized him and some of the names he gave in describing his background didn't hold up to scrutiny.    

[Predicto]

See, it's been my experience that the word Redskin is associated almost universally anymore with the football team.

 

Just my own limited personal experience on it.

 

~Bang

 

 

Well, isn't that because everyone has stopped using it in any other context, because it's kind of, maybe, borderline offensive or at least awkward to do so? 

 

How is that a strong argument in favor of KEEPING the name?  I know that Larry favors this argument, but it has never been compelling for me.   That people don't want to use the word anymore tells me that it is a poor choice of words to describe a Native American OR a Native American themed football team.  

[planter]

See, it's been my experience that the word Redskin is associated almost universally anymore with the football team.

Just my own limited personal experience on it.

~Bang

Have you been to the Navaho Reservation? Many others are dusty, remote places with high unemployment,alcoholism, gasoline sniffing, etc.

Or to Seattle where many NA customs have been folded into that whole Seattle "experience".

Most of the above don't associate the term Redskins solely with NFL football.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I don't agree. That's not how I see it, and I have discussed it with lots of 49er and Eagles fans who also don't think so. They say the logo is fine, but the word "redskin" is questionable. I don't know any Native Americans, but I know lots of fans of other teams.

I'm not concerned with satisfying Susan Harjo. She's not in it to be satisfied. I'm concerned with doing the right thing, as I understand it.

If you remove the Suzan Harjos from all of this, then there IS no name change movement. It's not as if the tactics, stances and posturing the activist leaders make is put up to a vote among the NAs they claim to represent. If they aren't satisfied (for whatever reason) with just a name change--and they're already on record that they wouldn't be--nothing else will matter. If the Skins change the name, Harjo and Halbaiter (or whatever his name is lol) will define "doing what's right".