Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (3 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

Chiefs of three Virginia tribes say they have no problem with ‘Redskins’

I don’t have an issue with it,” she said. “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.

“We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years. We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/05/15/chiefs-of-three-virginia-tribes-say-they-have-no-problem-with-redskins/

Like the PC crowd in this country really cares what they think. They just want them to be silent victims.

It's super easy to win arguments when you get to decide what the people on the other side the argument are saying and thinking, isn't it?

Kinda like people that want the name changed are doing with the native americans?

No.

 

[Don Quixote]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

 

[TobiasFunke]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

 

[The Commish]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

Probably every time someone suggests that all Native Americans need to consider it offensive before something is done.

 

[The Commish]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Worth what? That's the real question. What's the downside to the name change? So far the best arguments we've got are (1) if we change the name, the PC police win; and (2) there's a song. Sorry, but "I don't want the people I don't like to get what they want" isn't an actual reason. And the lyrics to a song is barely one (and that's coming from someone who learned the song before he learned long division).

And the idea that you can't fight for one thing while attending to other things is a fundamentally flawed argument. You could use that logic to defeat anything. "Why do we as a society care about [insert social problem here] when there's genocide in the Sudan?" It's a useless and meaningless argument.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Is that what you think is happening here? Just because a group (or groups of people) are calling for a name change doesn't mean they believe it is more important than other issues.

 

[Controller]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

 

[Jeremy]

Chiefs of three Virginia tribes say they have no problem with Redskins

I dont have an issue with it, she said. There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. Were worried about real things, and I dont consider that a real thing.

Were more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. Weve been in that survival mode for 400 years. Were not worried about how some ball team is named.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/05/15/chiefs-of-three-virginia-tribes-say-they-have-no-problem-with-redskins/

My high school team changed its name from the "Indians" to the "Statesmen" to be politically correct, after a group of social studies students went in a fact-finding mission to tribes out in the upper Mid-West, to reaffirm their beliefs that it was racist in nature; the tribes they met with did not have a problem with the word "Indians".

A lot of high schools with names like that have made similar changes. Probably most of them by now. People get their panties in a twist over "the PC crowd going overboard" for a few minutes, and then quickly get over it. In a year or 2 everyone is used to the new name and all but forget they were ever called the "Indians".

 

[Moe.]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

Why would anyone be offended by that?

 

[The Commish]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Worth what? That's the real question. What's the downside to the name change? So far the best arguments we've got are (1) if we change the name, the PC police win; and (2) there's a song. Sorry, but "I don't want the people I don't like to get what they want" isn't an actual reason. And the lyrics to a song is barely one (and that's coming from someone who learned the song before he learned long division).

And the idea that you can't fight for one thing while attending to other things is a fundamentally flawed argument. You could use that logic to defeat anything. "Why do we as a society care about [insert social problem here] when there's genocide in the Sudan?" It's a useless and meaningless argument.

Actions always speak louder than words in my world, so if one is saying one thing and doing another, I generally believe what they are "doing" is what they are about. What's the upside of the name change? (Questions like this are mere deflection and can go both ways) Seems to me a lot of folks would be even more pissed off by the name change, a lot of them American Indians. So you're pissing off a larger group to appease a smaller group? What's the upside to that?

To answer your question "worth what" in my question is referring to the time and effort spent to change the name....especially by the folks bringing the lawsuit. Is that best use of their self proclaimed "limited" resources. How is this name change going to help their quality of life? If we are to believe what they are saying (that they have limited resources) then the argument is fine. They don't have money for both. At the very least, money they are spending on this lawsuit can't also be spent on things that will actually improve their quality of life.

 

[The Commish]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Is that what you think is happening here? Just because a group (or groups of people) are calling for a name change doesn't mean they believe it is more important than other issues.

What I do know is they are actively choosing to dump this money into our legal system rather than spend it on other things. What they believe is sorta irrelevant at that point. They've made a decision.

 

[Controller]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

Why would anyone be offended by that?

That's my point. Naming a football team after a group of people is meant to imply that the team takes on some of the positive attributes of those people. "Redskins" just like "Fighting Irish" is meant to be a very positive reflection of the people they describe.

The PC crowd makes me sick.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Worth what? That's the real question. What's the downside to the name change? So far the best arguments we've got are (1) if we change the name, the PC police win; and (2) there's a song. Sorry, but "I don't want the people I don't like to get what they want" isn't an actual reason. And the lyrics to a song is barely one (and that's coming from someone who learned the song before he learned long division).

And the idea that you can't fight for one thing while attending to other things is a fundamentally flawed argument. You could use that logic to defeat anything. "Why do we as a society care about [insert social problem here] when there's genocide in the Sudan?" It's a useless and meaningless argument.

Actions always speak louder than words in my world, so if one is saying one thing and doing another, I generally believe what they are "doing" is what they are about. What's the upside of the name change? (Questions like this are mere deflection and can go both ways) Seems to me a lot of folks would be even more pissed off by the name change, a lot of them American Indians. So you're pissing off a larger group to appease a smaller group? What's the upside to that?

To answer your question "worth what" in my question is referring to the time and effort spent to change the name....especially by the folks bringing the lawsuit. Is that best use of their self proclaimed "limited" resources. How is this name change going to help their quality of life? If we are to believe what they are saying (that they have limited resources) then the argument is fine. They don't have money for both. At the very least, money they are spending on this lawsuit can't also be spent on things that will actually improve their quality of life.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying in 90% of this post.

I also have no idea who would be pissed off about a name change, or why.

 

[The Commish]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Worth what? That's the real question. What's the downside to the name change? So far the best arguments we've got are (1) if we change the name, the PC police win; and (2) there's a song. Sorry, but "I don't want the people I don't like to get what they want" isn't an actual reason. And the lyrics to a song is barely one (and that's coming from someone who learned the song before he learned long division).

And the idea that you can't fight for one thing while attending to other things is a fundamentally flawed argument. You could use that logic to defeat anything. "Why do we as a society care about [insert social problem here] when there's genocide in the Sudan?" It's a useless and meaningless argument.

Actions always speak louder than words in my world, so if one is saying one thing and doing another, I generally believe what they are "doing" is what they are about. What's the upside of the name change? (Questions like this are mere deflection and can go both ways) Seems to me a lot of folks would be even more pissed off by the name change, a lot of them American Indians. So you're pissing off a larger group to appease a smaller group? What's the upside to that?

To answer your question "worth what" in my question is referring to the time and effort spent to change the name....especially by the folks bringing the lawsuit. Is that best use of their self proclaimed "limited" resources. How is this name change going to help their quality of life? If we are to believe what they are saying (that they have limited resources) then the argument is fine. They don't have money for both. At the very least, money they are spending on this lawsuit can't also be spent on things that will actually improve their quality of life.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying in 90% of this post.

I also have no idea who would be pissed off about a name change, or why.

Kinda figured....no worries. I'm in the "meh" category. I don't really understand why they've chosen to spend their money in the legal system rather than help their own. I don't know why there is such emotion tied to a team name either. That's why my stance is, and will always be, I'll be as "outraged" about this as the American Indians as a whole are.

 

[Don Quixote]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

Why would anyone be offended by that?

That's my point. Naming a football team after a group of people is meant to imply that the team takes on some of the positive attributes of those people. "Redskins" just like "Fighting Irish" is meant to be a very positive reflection of the people they describe.

The PC crowd makes me sick.

I could understand that argument if they were called the Washington Fighting Native Americans, but they are not. The issue is that some view the term redskins as a pejorative; I don't think anyone who is Irish would say that about the term "Irish."

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

Why would anyone be offended by that?

That's my point. Naming a football team after a group of people is meant to imply that the team takes on some of the positive attributes of those people. "Redskins" just like "Fighting Irish" is meant to be a very positive reflection of the people they describe.

The PC crowd makes me sick.

You showed some amazing agility missing the point there.

 

[Controller]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

Why would anyone be offended by that?

That's my point. Naming a football team after a group of people is meant to imply that the team takes on some of the positive attributes of those people. "Redskins" just like "Fighting Irish" is meant to be a very positive reflection of the people they describe.

The PC crowd makes me sick.

You showed some amazing agility missing the point there.

Please explain then. I'm merely pointing out that the team's use of the name should be taken as flattering, not insulting. If some PC yahoos want to take offense at a term that an overwhelming majority of native Americans do not find offensive, then #### them. Am I agile now?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Are any people of Irish descent offended by Notre Dame's team name of the "Fighting Irish"?

JFC...we need a Dexter-like hero to go around quietly exterminating the PC-crowd, one by one. IMHO, of course.

Why would anyone be offended by that?

That's my point. Naming a football team after a group of people is meant to imply that the team takes on some of the positive attributes of those people. "Redskins" just like "Fighting Irish" is meant to be a very positive reflection of the people they describe.

The PC crowd makes me sick.

You showed some amazing agility missing the point there.

Please explain then. I'm merely pointing out that the team's use of the name should be taken as flattering, not insulting. If some PC yahoos want to take offense at a term that an overwhelming majority of native Americans do not find offensive, then #### them. Am I agile now?

Cite for the bold?

Just because YOU think the name should be taken as flattering doesn't mean jack #### to those that find it insulting.

And for god's sake stop using the term "PC". It just weakens your point.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The Chief Wahoo smiling cartoon Indian is way worse than the Redskins logo.

 

[ntz08]

The Chief Wahoo smiling cartoon Indian is way worse than the Redskins logo.

I agree, but Redskins as a team name is more offensive than Indians, even though I think they should all go. I'm a cleveland fan and i wouldn't miss chief wahoo at all. I prefer the script "I" logo hat, but even that has a small image of the chief on the back. I know a few fans who special order their cleveland gear without the chief on it.

 

[The Commish]

Are we now questioning whether 70 - 90% is "majority" now? Depending on which poll you choose to cite....that's where they've been. It's also interesting to me that the term "redskin" has had several different meanings and that most American Indians know that history.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

Probably every time someone suggests that all Native Americans need to consider it offensive before something is done.

Other than you, who has suggested this?

And if I was a native America I'd be find with people calling me a "Redskin". But my god don't ever associate me with the Snyders of Landover. That is beyond offensive. But that is the problem. How can any team given to that team not instantly be offensive? ****

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

Probably every time someone suggests that all Native Americans need to consider it offensive before something is done.

Other than you, who has suggested this?

And if I was a native America I'd be find with people calling me a "Redskin". But my god don't ever associate me with the Snyders of Landover. That is beyond offensive. But that is the problem. How can any team name be given to that team and not instantly be offensive? ****

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

Probably every time someone suggests that all Native Americans need to consider it offensive before something is done.

Other than you, who has suggested this?

And if I was a native America I'd be find with people calling me a "Redskin". But my god don't ever associate me with the Snyders of Landover. That is beyond offensive. But that is the problem. How can any team name be given to that team and not instantly be offensive? ****

 

[Brunell4MVP]

No. And anyway, The only name Snyder would be willing to change to is the Washington Dannyboys. The mans ego is the size of the Milky Way.

 

[The Commish]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

Probably every time someone suggests that all Native Americans need to consider it offensive before something is done.

Other than you, who has suggested this?

And if I was a native America I'd be find with people calling me a "Redskin". But my god don't ever associate me with the Snyders of Landover. That is beyond offensive. But that is the problem. How can any team given to that team not instantly be offensive? ****

I never suggested it

 

[Sweet J]

Are we now questioning whether 70 - 90% is "majority" now? Depending on which poll you choose to cite....that's where they've been. It's also interesting to me that the term "redskin" has had several different meanings and that most American Indians know that history.

Much of my work is with the Native American community. You could not get 70-90 percent of individual tribal members in this country, or tribes as a whole, to agree that the sun shines in the day, that water is wet, or that dogs have four legs. I would absolutely question the accuracy of any pll that said that 70-90% of Native Americans agree on anything, much less whether with the term "redskin" is offensive.

 

[The Commish]

Are we now questioning whether 70 - 90% is "majority" now? Depending on which poll you choose to cite....that's where they've been. It's also interesting to me that the term "redskin" has had several different meanings and that most American Indians know that history.

Much of my work is with the Native American community. You could not get 70-90 percent of individual tribal members in this country, or tribes as a whole, to agree that the sun shines in the day, that water is wet, or that dogs have four legs. I would absolutely question the accuracy of any pll that said that 70-90% of Native Americans agree on anything, much less whether with the term "redskin" is offensive.

Fair enough...All the pollings I've read have agreed that their sample sizes were not as large as they'd like them to be but they did the best they could. Now we are left with changing the name of a team because a handful of people find it offensive....yes I'm ignoring all the "outraged" people who have no real ties to American Indians....I don't really care what a white dude from Nebraska thinks about it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Are we now questioning whether 70 - 90% is "majority" now? Depending on which poll you choose to cite....that's where they've been. It's also interesting to me that the term "redskin" has had several different meanings and that most American Indians know that history.

Much of my work is with the Native American community. You could not get 70-90 percent of individual tribal members in this country, or tribes as a whole, to agree that the sun shines in the day, that water is wet, or that dogs have four legs. I would absolutely question the accuracy of any pll that said that 70-90% of Native Americans agree on anything, much less whether with the term "redskin" is offensive.

Fair enough...All the pollings I've read have agreed that their sample sizes were not as large as they'd like them to be but they did the best they could. Now we are left with changing the name of a team because a handful of people find it offensive....yes I'm ignoring all the "outraged" people who have no real ties to American Indians....I don't really care what a white dude from Nebraska thinks about it.

Sorry, but no. It's far more than a handful by any polling data. Even if we accept your 70-90% figures (and you yourself said those polls are limited, and they're also outdated), that's still a LOT of people. Like maybe a million. That's not a "handful" of people by any stretch of the imagination. That's enough that people who don't want to change it should at least offer a real, legitimate reason or benefit to keeping the name. Which, by the way, you still haven't done.

 

[The Commish]

Are we now questioning whether 70 - 90% is "majority" now? Depending on which poll you choose to cite....that's where they've been. It's also interesting to me that the term "redskin" has had several different meanings and that most American Indians know that history.

Much of my work is with the Native American community. You could not get 70-90 percent of individual tribal members in this country, or tribes as a whole, to agree that the sun shines in the day, that water is wet, or that dogs have four legs. I would absolutely question the accuracy of any pll that said that 70-90% of Native Americans agree on anything, much less whether with the term "redskin" is offensive.

Fair enough...All the pollings I've read have agreed that their sample sizes were not as large as they'd like them to be but they did the best they could. Now we are left with changing the name of a team because a handful of people find it offensive....yes I'm ignoring all the "outraged" people who have no real ties to American Indians....I don't really care what a white dude from Nebraska thinks about it.

Sorry, but no. It's far more than a handful by any polling data. Even if we accept your 70-90% figures (and you yourself said those polls are limited, and they're also outdated), that's still a LOT of people. Like maybe a million. That's not a "handful" of people by any stretch of the imagination. That's enough that people who don't want to change it should at least offer a real, legitimate reason or benefit to keeping the name. Which, by the way, you still haven't done.

There's no reason for me to give you any sort of reason because I don't care if it's kept or not. It's a rabbit hole I'm not going down. I already know I could give you several business reasons for keeping the name and they'd be dismissed as not legit, so what's the point? You're mind's made up and you aren't changing your POV. I'd love to see all the data you are basing your million number on. All I know is when I go out to look for evidence of offended people, I get the same group that's offended, and that's not a million. You get me a legit report of how many American Indians are really offended and we can then have a legit discussion. Until then your "million" number is coming from the same data I arrived at my "handful" comment. IMO, if this is something worth fighting, I'd expect to go out to the net and see tons of places where the American Indians are upset and wanting a change, but instead I get pages with examples where American Indians aren't offended and a great many are actually fans of the team.

 

[Hang 10]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Worth what? That's the real question. What's the downside to the name change? So far the best arguments we've got are (1) if we change the name, the PC police win; and (2) there's a song. Sorry, but "I don't want the people I don't like to get what they want" isn't an actual reason. And the lyrics to a song is barely one (and that's coming from someone who learned the song before he learned long division). And the idea that you can't fight for one thing while attending to other things is a fundamentally flawed argument. You could use that logic to defeat anything. "Why do we as a society care about [insert social problem here] when there's genocide in the Sudan?" It's a useless and meaningless argument.

Actions always speak louder than words in my world, so if one is saying one thing and doing another, I generally believe what they are "doing" is what they are about. What's the upside of the name change? (Questions like this are mere deflection and can go both ways) Seems to me a lot of folks would be even more pissed off by the name change, a lot of them American Indians. So you're pissing off a larger group to appease a smaller group? What's the upside to that? To answer your question "worth what" in my question is referring to the time and effort spent to change the name....especially by the folks bringing the lawsuit. Is that best use of their self proclaimed "limited" resources. How is this name change going to help their quality of life? If we are to believe what they are saying (that they have limited resources) then the argument is fine. They don't have money for both. At the very least, money they are spending on this lawsuit can't also be spent on things that will actually improve their quality of life.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying in 90% of this post. I also have no idea who would be pissed off about a name change, or why.

Don't you claim to be a Redskins fan? You can't think of anyone that might be pissed off at a name change or why? Maybe they should put a poll up on redskins.com.

 

[TobiasFunke]

There's no reason for me to give you any sort of reason because I don't care if it's kept or not. It's a rabbit hole I'm not going down. I already know I could give you several business reasons for keeping the name and they'd be dismissed as not legit, so what's the point? You're mind's made up and you aren't changing your POV. I'd love to see all the data you are basing your million number on. All I know is when I go out to look for evidence of offended people, I get the same group that's offended, and that's not a million. You get me a legit report of how many American Indians are really offended and we can then have a legit discussion. Until then your "million" number is coming from the same data I arrived at my "handful" comment. IMO, if this is something worth fighting, I'd expect to go out to the net and see tons of places where the American Indians are upset and wanting a change, but instead I get pages with examples where American Indians aren't offended and a great many are actually fans of the team.

Fair question. Here's the SI poll article. Keep in mind that this dates to 2002- my guess is that the number of Native Americans who do not approve of the name is higher today.

Relevant numbers:

Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name.

Take any of those outdated numbers you like , and you get somewhere between 25-43% of the sample of Native Americans being offended and/or thinking the team should not continue to use the name. The 2010 census says there's just under 3 million Native Americans/Inuits, plus another 2+ million who ID as Native American along with another race.

To keep the numbers simple, I just used 3 million and 33%. Obviously there's lots of uncertainty and gaps- I didn't even consider people who might ID as Native American who live elsewhere now- but that's at least a reasonable approximation.

Not that it should matter. The total isn't important- otherwise we'd be saying we're OK with offensive names as long as there aren't a lot of them living in the United States. It's the percentage that's important. The percentage is enough for me to prefer that they change it, unless someone explains a downside to changing it that outweighs the concerns of that minority to me. Which, as I said before, nobody has even tried to do.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How many times does it need to be posted in this thread that nobody is arguing that all Native Americans find the term "Redskins" offensive?

I'm just glad Commish posted the link to what that one chief said to the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'd missed it in the four previous posts all of which included a link to the exact same statement.

There's a whole bunch of other links very similar to them from various other folks out there as well. I just picked one....didn't read any of the other links. Feel free to look around yourself. The more I read about this, the more I'm left wondering if all the "hoopla" created for the few who are outraged is worth it. Yeah, there's a group that's supposedly outraged. How many have to be in that group before this is put in front of things like helping them with education, alcohol, or any of the other things they are struggling to manage.

Worth what? That's the real question. What's the downside to the name change? So far the best arguments we've got are (1) if we change the name, the PC police win; and (2) there's a song. Sorry, but "I don't want the people I don't like to get what they want" isn't an actual reason. And the lyrics to a song is barely one (and that's coming from someone who learned the song before he learned long division). And the idea that you can't fight for one thing while attending to other things is a fundamentally flawed argument. You could use that logic to defeat anything. "Why do we as a society care about [insert social problem here] when there's genocide in the Sudan?" It's a useless and meaningless argument.

Actions always speak louder than words in my world, so if one is saying one thing and doing another, I generally believe what they are "doing" is what they are about. What's the upside of the name change? (Questions like this are mere deflection and can go both ways) Seems to me a lot of folks would be even more pissed off by the name change, a lot of them American Indians. So you're pissing off a larger group to appease a smaller group? What's the upside to that? To answer your question "worth what" in my question is referring to the time and effort spent to change the name....especially by the folks bringing the lawsuit. Is that best use of their self proclaimed "limited" resources. How is this name change going to help their quality of life? If we are to believe what they are saying (that they have limited resources) then the argument is fine. They don't have money for both. At the very least, money they are spending on this lawsuit can't also be spent on things that will actually improve their quality of life.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying in 90% of this post. I also have no idea who would be pissed off about a name change, or why.

Don't you claim to be a Redskins fan? You can't think of anyone that might be pissed off at a name change or why? Maybe they should put a poll up on redskins.com.

Good point. I can think of who, I just have no idea why. I don't really care what people think if they can't back it up with reason, and I don't think anyone else should care either.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Chiefs of three Virginia tribes say they have no problem with Redskins

I dont have an issue with it, she said. There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. Were worried about real things, and I dont consider that a real thing.

Were more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. Weve been in that survival mode for 400 years. Were not worried about how some ball team is named.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/05/15/chiefs-of-three-virginia-tribes-say-they-have-no-problem-with-redskins/

My high school team changed its name from the "Indians" to the "Statesmen" to be politically correct, after a group of social studies students went in a fact-finding mission to tribes out in the upper Mid-West, to reaffirm their beliefs that it was racist in nature; the tribes they met with did not have a problem with the word "Indians".

A lot of high schools with names like that have made similar changes. Probably most of them by now. People get their panties in a twist over "the PC crowd going overboard" for a few minutes, and then quickly get over it. In a year or 2 everyone is used to the new name and all but forget they were ever called the "Indians".

...and the world's problems are fixed.

 

[jonessed]

Has anybody given an affirmative reason yet why it's important to keep the name? So far the reason seems to be "well, it's not really that bad."

Snyder owns the team and wants to keep it, the NFL wants to keep it, and the fans want to keep it. Unless its deemed illegal that's good enough for me.If This was really a big issue with Native Americans it would have been changed by now.

 

[The Commish]

There's no reason for me to give you any sort of reason because I don't care if it's kept or not. It's a rabbit hole I'm not going down. I already know I could give you several business reasons for keeping the name and they'd be dismissed as not legit, so what's the point? You're mind's made up and you aren't changing your POV. I'd love to see all the data you are basing your million number on. All I know is when I go out to look for evidence of offended people, I get the same group that's offended, and that's not a million. You get me a legit report of how many American Indians are really offended and we can then have a legit discussion. Until then your "million" number is coming from the same data I arrived at my "handful" comment. IMO, if this is something worth fighting, I'd expect to go out to the net and see tons of places where the American Indians are upset and wanting a change, but instead I get pages with examples where American Indians aren't offended and a great many are actually fans of the team.

Fair question. Here's the SI poll article. Keep in mind that this dates to 2002- my guess is that the number of Native Americans who do not approve of the name is higher today.

Relevant numbers:

>Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name.

Take any of those outdated numbers you like , and you get somewhere between 25-43% of the sample of Native Americans being offended and/or thinking the team should not continue to use the name. The 2010 census says there's just under 3 million Native Americans/Inuits, plus another 2+ million who ID as Native American along with another race.

To keep the numbers simple, I just used 3 million and 33%. Obviously there's lots of uncertainty and gaps- I didn't even consider people who might ID as Native American who live elsewhere now- but that's at least a reasonable approximation.

Not that it should matter. The total isn't important- otherwise we'd be saying we're OK with offensive names as long as there aren't a lot of them living in the United States. It's the percentage that's important. The percentage is enough for me to prefer that they change it, unless someone explains a downside to changing it that outweighs the concerns of that minority to me. Which, as I said before, nobody has even tried to do.

FWIW...you come across as one well passed "prefer they change it" stage. Generally speaking, I saw this poll also and assume it suffers from the same problems all the other polls do that have been posted here, so I'm not sure what it's evidence of if we have already established accurately polling American Indians is pretty tough to do.

To me...this whole excerpt is valid to the discussion not from a numbers perspective, but from a meaning of the word perspective:

Somehow that message is lost on most of Mills's fellow Native Americans. Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins," says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins."

Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations, thought Snyder should change his team's name. Such indifference implies a near total disconnect between Native American activists and the general Native American population on this issue. "To a lot of the younger folks the name Redskins is tied to the football team, and it doesn't represent anything more than the team," says Roland McCook, a member of the tribal council of the Ute tribe in Fort Duchesne, Utah.

If there is ANYTHING that is clear to me about this it's that people are choosing to read into what "Redskin" means. After reading several pages on the history of the term, what gets folks riled up etc, it's clear the meaning has changed over the years. It's gone from being a compliment originally, to an insult, to a name of a sports team. There are some who chose to ignore the initial definitions and automatically jump to the derogatory definition. I think a lot of that has to do with the era you grew up in as an American Indian. Problem, at least for me, is that it's a term that's changing meaning and without factoring in intent it's tough to decide whether it's meant to insult or not. To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

 

[TxBuckeye]

TobiasFunke, on 16 May 2013 - 10:04, said:Good point. I can think of who, I just have no idea why. I don't really care what people think if they can't back it up with reason, and I don't think anyone else should care either.

I think I see the prblem here...

 

[TobiasFunke]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

So you've admitted that it's more than a "handful" that have a problem with it and now you think it needs to be a majority to support change? I think that's a terrible standard to apply when we're talking about whether we want to change the name of a sports team. "Oh, only 40% of the minority are offended? Screw them, let's keep using the name!" But if that's what you want to use, then yes, I would agree that it appears a majority don't have a problem with it.

And despite what you seem to think, I'm really not "passed the 'prefer to change it' stage. The reason I care about this is because it's my team, not because I'm some Native American rights advocate. I love my local sports teams and I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by their name. I want to buy my kids jerseys and stuff without having to wonder if that jersey or whatever is offending a lot of people. If it's not, cool, but it seems to me that if it's even possibly offensive to some members of a minority (and we're past that point), why not change it?

 

[squistion]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

Yes, according to a poll over a decade old of questionable methodology and validity which was not replicated in a more recent poll I saw that was conducted by the leading Native American newspaper. I provided the link in the SP thread but don't feel like taking the time to dig it up again as it made no difference to those in the SP who wanted to keep the name (that currently most Native Americans actually do find the name offensive).

 

[The Commish]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

So you've admitted that it's more than a "handful" that have a problem with it and now you think it needs to be a majority to support change? I think that's a terrible standard to apply when we're talking about whether we want to change the name of a sports team. "Oh, only 40% of the minority are offended? Screw them, let's keep using the name!" But if that's what you want to use, then yes, I would agree that it appears a majority don't have a problem with it.

And despite what you seem to think, I'm really not "passed the 'prefer to change it' stage. The reason I care about this is because it's my team, not because I'm some Native American rights advocate. I love my local sports teams and I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by their name. I want to buy my kids jerseys and stuff without having to wonder if that jersey or whatever is offending a lot of people. If it's not, cool, but it seems to me that if it's even possibly offensive to some members of a minority (and we're past that point), why not change it?

I honestly don't know how many are actually offended. That's part of the problem. But I have always said I'd rely on the American Indians to be the guide on this. I don't have a specific number nor have I drawn a line. To me, if the general consensus among American Indians is that "redskin" is offensive, go for it...sue. I'll sign whatever document you want me to in order to help your cause. I don't get the impression that it's even close to that though. You seem to have a line drawn. Mind if I ask how you chose that line?

To the second part, I'm simply telling you how you are coming across in this thread. That's all. I don't need your defense of your position...it's not under attack. But the bold is a deciding difference between you and me. I don't care what people choose to be offended by. You do. If they want to be offended, fine. If they don't, fine. I learned several years ago, people go looking for ways to be offended. I can't imagine living that sort of life. To me, the intent of your team's name isn't malicious but I understand that some people may choose to be offended by it.

 

[The Commish]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

Yes, according to a poll over a decade old of questionable methodology and validity which was not replicated in a more recent poll I saw that was conducted by the leading Native American newspaper. I provided the link in the SP thread but don't feel like taking the time to dig it up again as it made no difference to those in the SP who wanted to keep the name (that currently most Native Americans actually do find the name offensive).

I'm open to it as I don't really care if they keep the name or not. All I want to understand is how American Indians as a whole feel about it. Everything I've read to date has suggested the polling was "the best that they can do". That's not compelling enough for me to make a judgment one way or the other.

 

[Controller]

People are offended by symbols of Christianity. Many municipalities no longer allow a manger scene to be put up at Christmas time on city-owned property.

A local school named Corpus Christ (body of Christ) changed their teams name from Crusaders to Comets because some people were offended.

The city of Berkeley renamed Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day, and other cities followed suit. They apparently were offended by the idea of honoring Christopher Columbus.

I am offended by how easily people are offended, and how easily they influence policies at all levels, largely because most people don't give a flying ####.

 

[Sweet J]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

Yes, according to a poll over a decade old of questionable methodology and validity which was not replicated in a more recent poll I saw that was conducted by the leading Native American newspaper. I provided the link in the SP thread but don't feel like taking the time to dig it up again as it made no difference to those in the SP who wanted to keep the name (that currently most Native Americans actually do find the name offensive).

I'm open to it as I don't really care if they keep the name or not. All I want to understand is how American Indians as a whole feel about it. Everything I've read to date has suggested the polling was "the best that they can do". That's not compelling enough for me to make a judgment one way or the other.

I know it's hard to believe just by me saying this, but the the concept of "American Indians as a whole" is so mind-blowingly foreign to American Indians that they would scoff at the reference. There is precious little that "American Indians as a whole" would agree on. Seriously. I had one guy I work with (again, most people I work with are Native) say that if a meteor was plummeting to earth, and the only thing that could save it was a nuclear rocket launched into space to obliterate it, but the catch was that the separate tribes had to agree on the color of the rocket, that you'd better find a bunker to hole up into.

There are over 500 tribes, each with its own personality, history, prejudices, etc. And scores of Native folks without tribal affiliation (and yes, these folks are looked down upon by many tribal members). It is really hard to get a concept of "what natives think" about anything, really.

 

[CBusAlex]

If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to buy a team and change the name to a racial slur for natives of Vanuatu or Montserrat or something and just see how long I can ride it out.

 

[Wrigley]

next up, the Chicago Black Hawks

 

[TobiasFunke]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

So you've admitted that it's more than a "handful" that have a problem with it and now you think it needs to be a majority to support change? I think that's a terrible standard to apply when we're talking about whether we want to change the name of a sports team. "Oh, only 40% of the minority are offended? Screw them, let's keep using the name!" But if that's what you want to use, then yes, I would agree that it appears a majority don't have a problem with it.

And despite what you seem to think, I'm really not "passed the 'prefer to change it' stage. The reason I care about this is because it's my team, not because I'm some Native American rights advocate. I love my local sports teams and I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by their name. I want to buy my kids jerseys and stuff without having to wonder if that jersey or whatever is offending a lot of people. If it's not, cool, but it seems to me that if it's even possibly offensive to some members of a minority (and we're past that point), why not change it?

I honestly don't know how many are actually offended. That's part of the problem. But I have always said I'd rely on the American Indians to be the guide on this. I don't have a specific number nor have I drawn a line. To me, if the general consensus among American Indians is that "redskin" is offensive, go for it...sue. I'll sign whatever document you want me to in order to help your cause. I don't get the impression that it's even close to that though. You seem to have a line drawn. Mind if I ask how you chose that line?

To the second part, I'm simply telling you how you are coming across in this thread. That's all. I don't need your defense of your position...it's not under attack. But the bold is a deciding difference between you and me. I don't care what people choose to be offended by. You do. If they want to be offended, fine. If they don't, fine. I learned several years ago, people go looking for ways to be offended. I can't imagine living that sort of life. To me, the intent of your team's name isn't malicious but I understand that some people may choose to be offended by it.

No, it's a good question. I draw the line at basically anything other than a few crazy oversensitive nutjobs. If I had to put a number on it I'd say maybe 5-10% of the minority population. Enough so that it's not just a few people trying to be offended.

Part of the reason it's that low for me is that I don't really see the flip side. It's just a name of a sports team. Who cares? The Bullets changed their name to the Wizards, and I don't like the team any less for it. Don't get me wrong, if I had my choice I'd rather they go back to Bullets, but that's mostly because Wizards is silly, not because I had some deep emotional tie to the name Bullets. Pro sports teams change their names and logos and all sorts of other identifying characteristics all the time, and the world keeps on spinning. If it says Washington in front of the nickname and the players aren't a pack of rapists and murderers, I'm gonna cheer for them. And so would every other DC football fan.

 

[The Commish]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

Yes, according to a poll over a decade old of questionable methodology and validity which was not replicated in a more recent poll I saw that was conducted by the leading Native American newspaper. I provided the link in the SP thread but don't feel like taking the time to dig it up again as it made no difference to those in the SP who wanted to keep the name (that currently most Native Americans actually do find the name offensive).

I'm open to it as I don't really care if they keep the name or not. All I want to understand is how American Indians as a whole feel about it. Everything I've read to date has suggested the polling was "the best that they can do". That's not compelling enough for me to make a judgment one way or the other.

I know it's hard to believe just by me saying this, but the the concept of "American Indians as a whole" is so mind-blowingly foreign to American Indians that they would scoff at the reference. There is precious little that "American Indians as a whole" would agree on. Seriously. I had one guy I work with (again, most people I work with are Native) say that if a meteor was plummeting to earth, and the only thing that could save it was a nuclear rocket launched into space to obliterate it, but the catch was that the separate tribes had to agree on the color of the rocket, that you'd better find a bunker to hole up into.

There are over 500 tribes, each with its own personality, history, prejudices, etc. And scores of Native folks without tribal affiliation (and yes, these folks are looked down upon by many tribal members). It is really hard to get a concept of "what natives think" about anything, really.

As one who deals with American Indians, how would you go about gauging this whole thing?

 

[The Commish]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

So you've admitted that it's more than a "handful" that have a problem with it and now you think it needs to be a majority to support change? I think that's a terrible standard to apply when we're talking about whether we want to change the name of a sports team. "Oh, only 40% of the minority are offended? Screw them, let's keep using the name!" But if that's what you want to use, then yes, I would agree that it appears a majority don't have a problem with it.

And despite what you seem to think, I'm really not "passed the 'prefer to change it' stage. The reason I care about this is because it's my team, not because I'm some Native American rights advocate. I love my local sports teams and I'd prefer not to be embarrassed by their name. I want to buy my kids jerseys and stuff without having to wonder if that jersey or whatever is offending a lot of people. If it's not, cool, but it seems to me that if it's even possibly offensive to some members of a minority (and we're past that point), why not change it?

I honestly don't know how many are actually offended. That's part of the problem. But I have always said I'd rely on the American Indians to be the guide on this. I don't have a specific number nor have I drawn a line. To me, if the general consensus among American Indians is that "redskin" is offensive, go for it...sue. I'll sign whatever document you want me to in order to help your cause. I don't get the impression that it's even close to that though. You seem to have a line drawn. Mind if I ask how you chose that line?

To the second part, I'm simply telling you how you are coming across in this thread. That's all. I don't need your defense of your position...it's not under attack. But the bold is a deciding difference between you and me. I don't care what people choose to be offended by. You do. If they want to be offended, fine. If they don't, fine. I learned several years ago, people go looking for ways to be offended. I can't imagine living that sort of life. To me, the intent of your team's name isn't malicious but I understand that some people may choose to be offended by it.

No, it's a good question. I draw the line at basically anything other than a few crazy oversensitive nutjobs. If I had to put a number on it I'd say maybe 5-10% of the minority population. Enough so that it's not just a few people trying to be offended.

Part of the reason it's that low for me is that I don't really see the flip side. It's just a name of a sports team. Who cares? The Bullets changed their name to the Wizards, and I don't like the team any less for it. Don't get me wrong, if I had my choice I'd rather they go back to Bullets, but that's mostly because Wizards is silly, not because I had some deep emotional tie to the name Bullets. Pro sports teams change their names and logos and all sorts of other identifying characteristics all the time, and the world keeps on spinning. If it says Washington in front of the nickname and the players aren't a pack of rapists and murderers, I'm gonna cheer for them. And so would every other DC football fan.

There are a lot of fans who care. Why? You'll have to ask them. From a business perspective, it's a lot of money to change the team name, logo, all that stuff. You are certainly more sensitive to others choice to be offended than I am, especially here. I get that there's a period in history that this was a major insult. There's also a period in history where it was a compliment. Given the changing nature of the team, I struggle with the reality that one part of history is being ignored for another. I'm not a big fan of that kind of person in general. I don't like it when people take specific segments of time and use them exclusively to make a point. I think it's short sighted and lazy.

I don't think Washington would lose fans over this, but I do believe they'd just be shifting animosity. Several sites out there have American Indians suggesting they'd be annoyed with a decision to change the name to appease a subset of their culture. "What about our perspective and what the name means to us?" kinds of questions/quotes are out there. So do we appease one subset at the risk of another? I don't know. If it's me and I know someone's going to be pissed off regardless, I'm struggling to see the motivation for changing the name. It's going to cost me money just to piss off another subset of my fan base. It's no win either way, but one way it's costing me less.

 

[Sweet J]

To date, it appears that more American Indians than not don't have a problem with it.

Yes, according to a poll over a decade old of questionable methodology and validity which was not replicated in a more recent poll I saw that was conducted by the leading Native American newspaper. I provided the link in the SP thread but don't feel like taking the time to dig it up again as it made no difference to those in the SP who wanted to keep the name (that currently most Native Americans actually do find the name offensive).

I'm open to it as I don't really care if they keep the name or not. All I want to understand is how American Indians as a whole feel about it. Everything I've read to date has suggested the polling was "the best that they can do". That's not compelling enough for me to make a judgment one way or the other.

I know it's hard to believe just by me saying this, but the the concept of "American Indians as a whole" is so mind-blowingly foreign to American Indians that they would scoff at the reference. There is precious little that "American Indians as a whole" would agree on. Seriously. I had one guy I work with (again, most people I work with are Native) say that if a meteor was plummeting to earth, and the only thing that could save it was a nuclear rocket launched into space to obliterate it, but the catch was that the separate tribes had to agree on the color of the rocket, that you'd better find a bunker to hole up into.

There are over 500 tribes, each with its own personality, history, prejudices, etc. And scores of Native folks without tribal affiliation (and yes, these folks are looked down upon by many tribal members). It is really hard to get a concept of "what natives think" about anything, really.

As one who deals with American Indians, how would you go about gauging this whole thing?

That's a darn good question. My gut response: Very carefully.

But aside from being flippant, this is an interesting issue. I'm going to think on it.