TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I was. But not because they were voicing their opinions. It was because of the WAY they were voicing their opinions.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter DBIsports
- Start date
CBusAlex
Footballguy
Oh, so if there's a specific action that you have a problem with (like, say, "swearing at the redskins PR rep"), I shouldn't take the most general form of that action I can think of (like, "voicing an opinion"), even though I know full well that's not what your issue is, and attempt to carry on the conversation as though it were? You say this sort of willful ignorance does nothing but bog down threads and derail them into meaningless tangents?
Good, I agree.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the tweet. What's wrong with sticking up for your belief? Why is it when someone sticks up for their beliefs and others disagree with it, they say that the other person is clueless?
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
What the hell are you talking about?Oh, so if there's a specific action that you have a problem with (like, say, "swearing at the redskins PR rep"), I shouldn't take the most general form of that action I can think of (like, "voicing an opinion"), even though I know full well that's not what your issue is, and attempt to carry on the conversation as though it were? You say this sort of willful ignorance does nothing but bog down threads and derail them into meaningless tangents?
Good, I agree.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the tweet. What's wrong with sticking up for your belief? Why is it when someone sticks up for their beliefs and others disagree with it, they say that the other person is clueless?
The most offensive part of the name is Washington, not Redskins. Drop that. FYI http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html Redskins is a term originated by Native Americans themselves. Maybe that has already been pointed out here, but I am too lazy to read all the posts.
squistion
Footballguy
Amazingly it has not been pointed out even one time is all 32 pages of this thread. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Fennis
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
nottingham Forest
Footballguy
The Washington Mystics, what if they were called the Washington Squaws?
Rayderr
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Funny actually I don't know if anyone has discussed this aspect.
It does seem like a lot of the fervor has been coming from the Oneida about the name. The tactics of Washington in the French & Indian War is a controversial subject:
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1077
On the other hand the Oneida were our outright allies, and they were key to winning at Saratoga:
http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/history/veterans/The-Revolutionary-War.html
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It just seems like the Oneida is the only tribe I can recall really saying anything about the name as a tribe. They are nearby I believe but not actually in the Redskins' territory.
What tribe is most prominent in the Redskins' area? Any specific tribe really a name in Maryland or Northern Virginia area?
If so have they said anything about the Redskins name?
What tribe is most prominent in the Redskins' area? Any specific tribe really a name in Maryland or Northern Virginia area?
If so have they said anything about the Redskins name?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This is wrong, as has been pointed out repeatedly. You can read through this thread and find tons of other Native American leaders, tribes and regular old people who have spoken up in opposition to the name.
I don't really get what geography has to do with it. It's a slur that a large number of Native Americans find offensive. That much is not really up for debate. Pretty much every argument that the team has made to the contrary has been exposed as a lie, from the guy they put in front of cameras to condone the name to the claim that they changed the name to "honor" a coach. If they have to lie to find support for their position in the Native American community that should probably tell you something.
It's up to you whether you're cool with offending some Native Americans as long as the number of offended is less than some arbitrary number, or just how many Native Americans in a particular geographic area would have to be offended for you to think it's worth the untold horrors that might unfold if a sports team changes its name. Personally I think that's a little silly, but whatever.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Good lord, Tobias, I didn't even comment on the issue.TobiasFunke said:
If anything I posted from the Oneida site a statement that reminds us that we owe the Oneida, we have an historical debt and duty to them.
There are thousands of tribes in this country, there is as much ethnic diversity as there is in Europe. It just seems like every time I hear a statement (I said "I recall") it's coming from the Oneida, and then I just said something very positive why they should carry weight.
By the way I'm surprised you don't know of any local tribes in the DC area. I can tell you that in LA if the Coushatta, Tunica and Houma wanted to make a stink about something people from US Senators to powerful state elgislators would jump, albeit they're not a factor in NO, but then again the Saints and Pels rely heavily on state funding (that's a polite way of putting it).
Given what happened with Cooke and the RFK Stadium back in teh day, I'm surprised the state of MD isn't getting some sort of pressure from some key local tribe to withhold use of the stadium and other state/local support. Is that happening and if so which tribe? Just asking.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You asked if any tribe other than the Oneidas has expressed opposition to the name. I pointed out that yes, many have, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere.
I didn't say anything about not knowing tribes in the region. Not sure why you said I don't. You can google the information yourself and get a result in about five seconds.
And yes, I assumed that you were asking (1) whether other tribes had a problem with it, and (2) specifically about local tribes, because you thought the answers to those questions relevant to the subject of the thread, whether the name should be changed or not. Seemed like a reasonable assumption, and I responded based on that. What that an incorrect assumption?
As to your next question- Fed Ex Field is owned by the team, not the state, so the state could not withhold use (there would be breach concerns anyway, I assume most sports teams have long-term leases).
dgreen
Footballguy
Snyder owns the stadium and land. The state/county does provide police service (traffic and crowd control), but I doubt they'd ever withhold that.
I heard someone recently suggest changing the name to a local tribe name, assuming a local tribe approves. The Richmond Times Dispatch talked to three Virginia chiefs last year who support the name. So, maybe we can have the Washington Patawomecks? Washington Pamunkies? Washington Rappahanocks? That would be weird.
Or from Maryland, you have the Washington Piscataways or Washington Pocomokes?
dgreen
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
That would be kinda cool if the tribe was on board, as is the case with the Seminoles and FSU. Would be a weird process to choose one, though. I know the Rappahanock tribe doesn't mind the current name but the Piscataway are not so keen on it.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
How about the Washington Red States? And just a picture of Michelle Bachmann as the logo?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
Yeah, the process to pick a tribe could be tough. Not sure if any one tribe is dominant in the area or not.
As with Potomac, there's no shortage of other American Indian words associated with the region. Chesapeake could be another one. The Washington Mattawoman and the rest of the league could make fun of the team for being a bunch of women...unless that's offensive, of course
.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I have total respect for people's viewpoints. I couldn't stand face to face with an Oneida and say, 'hey you shouldn't be offended.'
On the other hand, I think if the local tribes take pride in the name or don't care, then that should carry a lot of weight. It would also carry more weight than anything if they opposed it.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/professional/football/redskins/article_26b0f8d8-eb22-52f0-87df-c05e24bbfc0e.html
It seems to me it's also difficult for any anglo person to similarly tell a Patawomeck, Rappahannock or Pamunkey why they are wrong for not feeling offended. And if a name change were to occur it would start with the local tribes that have the most influence in the area.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
On the bolded- nobody is doing that. That's never been a part of the discussion. Only the opposite is true- people are telling those who ARE offended that they should not be.
Also, I disagree that the local tribes carry significantly more weight on the subject than others. If some Jews in New York considered "****" to be a term of affection but lots of other Jews (and other people) considered it a slur, would you be OK with the NY Knicks changing their name to the NY Kikes? It's not a local high school- the name is on TV screens and newspapers and websites across the world.
Finally, if you do think the local tribes' opinion is vastly more important for some reason, here's one that thinks it should be changed.
ETA: if you think the local tribes have the most influence in the area, you're out of your mind. Even the tribal leaders would laugh at that. Any Skins starter coming out against the name would have a bigger impact than any tribal leader's statement. If RGIII said he didn't like it they'd change the name before he finished the sentence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Quixote
Footballguy
As I grew up in the town of Piscataway, NJ, I may have to switch my only remaining non-local allegiance and start pulling for them if they change their name to the Piscataways.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That is wild, it's like two totally different articles. Odd how the Piscataway chief was left out of that first one from Richmond but you plainly showed there are several tribes, and the Piscataway-Canoy are actually in MD,
I really do think the local tribes matter, interesting stuff, thanks.
otello
Footballguy
Have any players come out against the name?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
A bunch of them have protested by losing on purpose for years but nobody noticed.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'll just leave this here:
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2014/06/racist-slur-offends-race-slur-created-offend.html
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2014/06/racist-slur-offends-race-slur-created-offend.html
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If someone who isn't on a phone wouldn't mind copying and pasting the article, I'd sure appreciate it.
It would be nice to see how everyone else feels about an actual study that shows that 65% of Native Americans (not 10%) find the term racist.
It would be nice to see how everyone else feels about an actual study that shows that 65% of Native Americans (not 10%) find the term racist.
Last edited by a moderator:
otello
Footballguy
One of the oft-repeated statistics in the on-going debate over the name Redskins is that very few Native Americans are actually offended by the term. Youve likely heard Roger Goodell, or Dan Snyder, or Rick Reilly claim that only 10 percent of Native Americans object to the term. Even those who have argued for changing the name have generally accepted this statistic as fact, stating their case as well, isnt 10 percent still too much? And honestly, that would be an interesting conversation to have, but as it turns out, we dont need to have it, because all that talk about Native Americans supporting the name is a great big pile of horse####. Try and look surprised.
According to a recent survey conducted by California State University, 67 percent of Native Americans find the name Redskins as well as the imagery around it to be racist. Additionally, 65.5 percent of respondents believed that non-Natives using the phrase was racist, compared to just 17.8 percent who didnt.
But what about the infamous 2004 survey that so many defenders of the name have cited, in which it stated that only nine percent of Native Americans found the name to be offensive? Well, as it turns out that study was a lot of bunk. As the Buzzfeed article points out, no effort was made to verify the tribal status of the respondents. So basically, any white dude with a tan could respond to the survey and say they were fine with the name, and be counted as a Native American. Conversely, Professor James Fenelon, who put the study together, put verification of respondents as a top priority, making sure every respondent was an active enrolled member of a tribal group. One more note about that infamous 2004 study: it also entirely left out Alaska, where more than half of all identified Native Americans live.
The debunking of the 2004 study, as well as the presence of new information that a ####-ton of native Americans are angry about the name is bad news for the pro-Redskins crowd. The 2004 survey has been a huge part of their argument for years. It made it all-too-easy to frame any non-Native person who disliked the term as a perpetually cranky member of the PC Police. Hey, youre more offended by than they are, theyd say. Another popular one: who are you to tell these proud people what they should be offended by?
Both of those arguments are out the window now, and Snyder and his ilk will have to defend the name knowing that a huge chunk of the people they claim to be honoring are really ####### pissed off. My guess is, whatever faint shreds of credibility their arguments may have still held will evaporate rather quickly.
According to a recent survey conducted by California State University, 67 percent of Native Americans find the name Redskins as well as the imagery around it to be racist. Additionally, 65.5 percent of respondents believed that non-Natives using the phrase was racist, compared to just 17.8 percent who didnt.
But what about the infamous 2004 survey that so many defenders of the name have cited, in which it stated that only nine percent of Native Americans found the name to be offensive? Well, as it turns out that study was a lot of bunk. As the Buzzfeed article points out, no effort was made to verify the tribal status of the respondents. So basically, any white dude with a tan could respond to the survey and say they were fine with the name, and be counted as a Native American. Conversely, Professor James Fenelon, who put the study together, put verification of respondents as a top priority, making sure every respondent was an active enrolled member of a tribal group. One more note about that infamous 2004 study: it also entirely left out Alaska, where more than half of all identified Native Americans live.
The debunking of the 2004 study, as well as the presence of new information that a ####-ton of native Americans are angry about the name is bad news for the pro-Redskins crowd. The 2004 survey has been a huge part of their argument for years. It made it all-too-easy to frame any non-Native person who disliked the term as a perpetually cranky member of the PC Police. Hey, youre more offended by than they are, theyd say. Another popular one: who are you to tell these proud people what they should be offended by?
Both of those arguments are out the window now, and Snyder and his ilk will have to defend the name knowing that a huge chunk of the people they claim to be honoring are really ####### pissed off. My guess is, whatever faint shreds of credibility their arguments may have still held will evaporate rather quickly.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Thanks.
Das Boot
Footballguy
I'm shocked, shocked I say, that a majority of native Americans find the term Redskin offensive.
the moops
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
That their readers actually saw the results of a study by CSU.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It's not really the blog entry that's important. It's the CSU survey information it relates. If it's true, those defending the name will lose the last rational argument they've hid behind: that most Native Americans don't find the name and imagery offensive.tonydead said:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Here's the press release from the department that did the survey, if for some reason you thought KSK fabricated it. Getting picked up by other outlets today, too.
I'd be surprised if the name isn't changed by the start of the 2015 season. They'll cite this survey as evidence of "a significant shift in attitudes" and hide behind the poorly done 2004 Annenberg survey as the reason they didn't do it sooner.
I'd be surprised if the name isn't changed by the start of the 2015 season. They'll cite this survey as evidence of "a significant shift in attitudes" and hide behind the poorly done 2004 Annenberg survey as the reason they didn't do it sooner.
dgreen
Footballguy
otello said:
Not sure where they got this number. By "more than half", did they mean "about 4%", which is what the American Community Survey says (98,976/2,529,100=0.039135)? Or is this only based on who James Fenelon deems worthy of being a Native Amercian?
Both surveys likely have problems.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Read the rest of it.And really? If someone asked you "Is the Redskins name racial or racist" you would say "yes" and not believe that it's racist?
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
That would be a great point if it were the only question asked, and I'm not sure why they phrased it like that. But they also asked if it was disrespectful (question 2) and the % of yes responses was even higher, so that pretty much takes care of that argument.
dgreen
Footballguy
I'm more of a skimmer than a reader.
Yes, those other questions looks better. No data for questions 2-4?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's only a press release. The data will be released in the full study, no doubt.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Only being reinforced just about every day.Does anyone still really believe that this will just get boring and fade away?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I'm going to reserve judgment on this new survey data until I can read a HOT SPORTS TAKE about it.
dgreen
Footballguy
I assume. I'll also be interested in reading the methodology so we can find out how they "properly identified and polled" Native Americans.
dgreen
Footballguy
That's the meaning of "or". I don't have to agree with both parts to answer Yes. Obviously the actual respondents may not have answered the same way. They may have read into the intent of the question rather than the actual wording.
And of course the "blog" translates this to a ####-ton of ######-pissed of native Americans.Similar threads
