• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Redskins Name Change Thread

This. Times about a fuggin million. Good lord people -- of all the causes people have to get cranked up about this one does not even register.

Sunday,I am going to be sure to say the name "Redskins" as many times as I am able in whatever public setting I can find.

I don't give a fuck. Period. Not even a "Fucking fuck"... damnable soft- serve -pudding pants do-not- a-god damn thing bunch of guilt filled liberals. I'd say fuck 'em in the ass but it is clear they'd enjoy it too much.

This is obviously the post of someone not concerned at all.
 
Meanwhile, Lee Corso is jumping around on TV in a headdress with a spear...basically the equivalent of blackface on television.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...g-the-native-equivalent-of-black-face/280713/

But the fact is that many people did consider the episode highly offensive. Here is what a spokeswoman for the National Congress of American Indians told me Saturday evening:

This is a perfect example of how Native Americans are ridiculed in the course of sports entertainment. Good natured rivalries are one thing. Wearing the native equivalent of black face is quite another. The Eagle Staff carried by Mr. Corso and thrown into the crowd by Mr. Murray is a sacred symbol of leadership and today is used to honor our Native veterans who have served this country. That it was used as a prop in this mockery and shown such disrespect is proof that our heritage and culture are not honored or respected by the slurs and caricatures used by sports teams.

No one, including the executives at ESPN, would ever tolerate a show today in which a white man donned black face and pranced around a set. And yet no one, including ESPN, seems to have a problem with a white man goofting around in a similar fashion as a Native American tribal chief. The disconnect between those two realities is the disconnect today in America between what whites and blacks think is insensitive to Native Americans and what Native Americans think is insensitive to them. In a perfect world, the victims of stereotypes, and not the perpetrators of them, would get to decide what is and is not offensive. But of course no one needs to tell the American Indian that this is not a perfect world.
 
Meanwhile, Lee Corso is jumping around on TV in a headdress with a spear...basically the equivalent of blackface on television.

The Redskins are a respected "football team." Lee Corso is an idiot.

It's like getting mad because your two-year-old gets to wet his pants and you don't.
 
I am a proud Western North Carolinian and I am very proud of my mountain heritage. Should I be offended when Corso dawns a coon skinned had and fires a musket into the air?

If you actually do feel offended by it, then sure.

But I'm not going to tell the National Congress of American Indians what they should think.
 
If you actually do feel offended by it, then sure.

But I'm not going to tell the National Congress of American Indians what they should think.

I don't understand how you can take that stance but completely ignore every poll that has shown that the vast majority of American Indians don't have a problem with Indian mascots.
 
I don't understand how you can take that stance but completely ignore every poll that has shown that the vast majority of American Indians don't have a problem with Indian mascots.

Pretty sure it's one poll that has its flawed and is not particularly recent. I also don't think the problem is with "Indian mascots" in general, but the name "Redskins" in general.
 
I don't understand how you can take that stance but completely ignore every poll that has shown that the vast majority of American Indians don't have a problem with Indian mascots.

When was the most recent poll done that showed that?

Also, I think making the issue just "Indian mascots" in general is kind of unnecessarily broad. Me personally, I don't have a problem with the name "Seminoles" or "Braves." But I do have a problem with some of the imagery and traditions that those teams use. I do have a problem with the name "Redskins." I would bet most Native Americans have an opinion that also has some shades of gray.
 
Another question - If a good, current poll showed that 40% of Native Americans didn't like the name "Redskins," would that be enough people for you to think they should change it? Does it have to be 50%+1? What if it was 30%?
 
People who don't like the results of polls question the methodology...that defense is as old as polls.

I am on my phone is I don't have access to the polls but from memory there have been 2 such polls. One taken about 10 years ago (during the opening of the American Indian museum in DC) that showed 90% of American Indians were not offended by American Indian imagery and another one taken about 5 years ago that showed 80% have no problem. I am fairly sure that both polls (I know the first one) mentioned the Redskins specifically.

Sure those polls are somewhat dated but I have never seen a poll that shows there is a significant number of American Indians are offended by any of this.
 
Another question - If a good, current poll showed that 40% of Native Americans didn't like the name "Redskins," would that be enough people for you to think they should change it? Does it have to be 50%+1? What if it was 30%?

Good question...not sure I have an answer. My main point is that all this talk about Redskins being the same as the N-word or Indian mascots the same as a guy in black face is nonsense. I think there are legitimate points to be made but false comparisons and exaggerating outrage is not honest.

Like I said at the start of this thread (or another one) if I owned the team I would change the name just to end all of this (and make a nice penny in the process) so I am not some adamant name defender.
 
This is obviously the post of someone not concerned at all.

You got something right. No, I don't give a fuck about this deal. What is disconcerting is the diversion from real issues on simpletons like yourself.
 
Another question - If a good, current poll showed that 40% of Native Americans didn't like the name "Redskins," would that be enough people for you to think they should change it? Does it have to be 50%+1? What if it was 30%?

What if it was still less than 10%?
 
Interesting read here:

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360/@maxread

The point: Most Native people have no inherent problem with Indian mascots; what matters is the presentation of that mascot and name. The presentation of the name "Redskins" is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply don't identity ourselves.

Every other ethnic group gets the opportunity to self-identify in the way they choose. Native people do not.
 
Interesting read here:

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360/@maxread

The point: Most Native people have no inherent problem with Indian mascots; what matters is the presentation of that mascot and name. The presentation of the name "Redskins" is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply don't identity ourselves.

Every other ethnic group gets the opportunity to self-identify in the way they choose. Native people do not.

Another interesting tidbit given the discussion a couple pages back

Apparently, though, while it's racist and condescending to tell some people what should offend them, it's somehow OK to do the same with Native people.
 
You got something right. No, I don't give a fuck about this deal. What is disconcerting is the diversion from real issues on simpletons like yourself.

I apologize for you having to take such important time to read and respond to this thread when there are so many important matters to attend to.
 
People who don't like the results of polls question the methodology...that defense is as old as polls.

I am on my phone is I don't have access to the polls but from memory there have been 2 such polls. One taken about 10 years ago (during the opening of the American Indian museum in DC) that showed 90% of American Indians were not offended by American Indian imagery and another one taken about 5 years ago that showed 80% have no problem. I am fairly sure that both polls (I know the first one) mentioned the Redskins specifically.

Sure those polls are somewhat dated but I have never seen a poll that shows there is a significant number of American Indians are offended by any of this.

How about a poll from last week showing that 59% of Americans understand why "Redskins" is an offensive term:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...edskins-name-is-offensive-to-native-americans

You can say that methodology problems are an old defense, but the poll you are referring to had people self identify, didn't confirm that they were actually a member of a tribe, didn't ask people to identify the tribe that they claimed, etc.

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the "Redskins" trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions"
 
Last edited:
How about a poll from last week showing that 59% of Americans understand why "Redskins" is an offensive term:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...edskins-name-is-offensive-to-native-americans

You can say that methodology problems are an old defense, but the poll you are referring to had people self identify, didn't confirm that they were actually a member of a tribe, didn't ask people to identify the tribe that they claimed, etc.

That poll is laughable (not the methodology...the actual poll). The question was something like "do American Indians have the right to be offended by..." Give me a break. The fact that it was only %59 is the shocking part. Anyone has the right to be offended about anything. That poll was commissioned by the group that is driving (and profiting off of) this movement. They worded that poll to get a desired response. Again, the surprising thing for me is they only got 59%.
 
I am a member of the Lumbee tribe. I was born in Robeson county. All of my relatives on both sides are Lumbees. It's very simple. Go down to Robeson county, specifically Pembroke, and start throwing around the term Redskins. You can do it in the nicest way possible, but you are going to have a hard time making back to your vehicle before some "Redskin" commences to start kicking your ass. It has nothing to do with PC. That's just a way for the closet racist to get out of doing what's right, both ethically and morally. All you have to do is google the term "Redskin", and you'll find out why it is such a negative and hateful name. Daniel Snyder could care less about what's right, only what is going to put money in his pocket.
 
Back
Top