• 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

Wakeforest22890 said:
A guest on Boston Public Radio (lunch time bloc on NPR) from DC who they have on the show on a recurring basis, argued that if even 10% of Native Americans are offended by the name then that's 10% too many and it should change. He's black and said that if a poll came out saying only 10% of the black population was offended by the use of the "n word" would we have a corporate entity named after it?

I don't know if I agree with this or not, but figured it was good fodder for discussion on here.
Click to expand...

So where's the % cut off line? 5%? 1%? .001%?
 
The trans population is under 1% and there's a big push for equality rights there. Gay people make up single digits of the population and it's similar. Maybe those aren't equal comparisons though since it's an equality issue in these areas and a corporate/public perception issue for Washington.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The trans population is under 1% and there's a big push for equality rights there. Gay people make up single digits of the population and it's similar. Maybe those aren't equal comparisons though since it's an equality issue in these areas and a corporate/public perception issue for Washington.
Click to expand...

It isn't the percentage of the population, it is the percentage of that percentage that we are talking about. My gay and lesbian cinema professor at Wake was saying how a number of homosexuals still find the word queer offensive but the LGBTQ community has pushed on and embraced it despite the small minority of dissenters.
 
timdunkandthefunk said:
It isn't the percentage of the population, it is the percentage of that percentage that we are talking about. My gay and lesbian cinema professor at Wake was saying how a number of homosexuals still find the word queer offensive but the LGBTQ community has pushed on and embraced it despite the small minority of dissenters.
Click to expand...

That's a great point.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
A guest on Boston Public Radio (lunch time bloc on NPR) from DC who they have on the show on a recurring basis, argued that if even 10% of Native Americans are offended by the name then that's 10% too many and it should change. He's black and said that if a poll came out saying only 10% of the black population was offended by the use of the "n word" would we have a corporate entity named after it?

I don't know if I agree with this or not, but figured it was good fodder for discussion on here.
Click to expand...

That guy was an idiot. 10% of the population is invariably offended by just about anything at any time. People are offended by the brutality of football, but that doesn't mean it's going to spell doom for the NFL. His n-word comparison is especially stupid. We don't have a corporate entity called the N-word because it is beyond offensive and to far more than 10% of just the black, white, or yellow population. Nobody named the team the Redskins because it was offensive or an epithet because people don't name sports teams or corporate entities after something that is brazenly offensive. It wasn't offensive then and even now, after 20+ years of mindlessly repeating the fabricated notion that it is offensive, a whopping 10% of injuns are offended by it. And so now I guess the argument has gone from "it offends Native Americans" to "well even 10% is too many."
 
To be fair, the word as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary is: American Indian, usually offensive. That's not to say that this is the end all be all, but certainly reveals the ingrained nature of the term as offensive behind merely "20+ years of mindlessly repeating the fabricated notion that it is offensive."
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
To be fair, the word as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary is: American Indian, usually offensive. That's not to say that this is the end all be all, but certainly reveals the ingrained nature of the term as offensive behind merely "20+ years of mindlessly repeating the fabricated notion that it is offensive."
Click to expand...

Because I'm sure the fine folks at Webster's really have a pretty serious powwow when assigning an "offensive" label to a word.

Like a lot of words, the degree of offense is greatly determined by whether it is preceded by the word fucking, i.e. that fucking homosexual, that fucking guy, that fucking redskin, that fucking black dude, that fucking cuntbag whore, etc...
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
A guest on Boston Public Radio (lunch time bloc on NPR) from DC who they have on the show on a recurring basis, argued that if even 10% of Native Americans are offended by the name then that's 10% too many and it should change. He's black and said that if a poll came out saying only 10% of the black population was offended by the use of the "n word" would we have a corporate entity named after it?

I don't know if I agree with this or not, but figured it was good fodder for discussion on here.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh ....

nwa.jpg


And don't even try to claim that is not a corporate entity. Dr. Dre has a reported net worth of over $700 million, Ice Cube has a reported net worth of $100 million, and Straight Outta Compton grossed over $160 million last year at the box office. That isn't as much as the Redskins are worth, but it is in the same relative stratospheric ballpark.
 
So between you and numbers the solution apparently is the Redskins can keep their name but the entire team and organization has to be made up of people associated with said name.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
So between you and numbers the solution apparently is the Redskins can keep their name but the entire team and organization has to be made up of people associated with said name.
Click to expand...

So, theoretically, if they were able to clone an entire team from Jim Thorpe's DNA, would that count? Thorpe was only half native.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The trans population is under 1% and there's a big push for equality rights there. Gay people make up single digits of the population and it's similar. Maybe those aren't equal comparisons though since it's an equality issue in these areas and a corporate/public perception issue for Washington.
Click to expand...

Not the same. Bathrooms aren't football teams !
 
Screamindemon3 said:
So where's the % cut off line? 5%? 1%? .001%?
Click to expand...

I think any number associated with this story is going to be fairly inaccurate due to the fact that the offended population exists as both tribal members and non-tribal members and the inability to really gauge the true number of offended with the way reservations are setup or how prevalent things like telephones, internet, etc are there.

Someone born with no relationship to the tribe is going to naturally feel differently with this issue than someone born and raised being actively involved with tribal goings on.

Asking a diehard Washington fan that's 12.5% Native American whether the mascot offends them proves nothing and has little to do with the heart of this issue.
 
Also, NWA would be a great name for an NFL football team. Ice Cube is a big LA Raiders fan. Make this happen. Break the Internet !
 
Last edited:
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
Yep...no Native Americans are offended by it.

Keep patting yourself on the back like all idiots too stupid to see they're on the wrong side of history...join the NC republicans, any conservatives who fight to the "death" over gay rights, segregationists, etc etc etc. You're supporting something that just will not stand the test of time and it would just work out better for everyone if the name was changed sooner rather than later.

Get it done and move on to REAL issues.
Click to expand...

Except, you know, they aren't. But keep telling yourself that. I admire your courage. Carrying that cross for people who don't want you to do it must be exhausting.
 
Last edited:
Well, some Native Americans are offended by it. Whether or not it's enough to matter, or if there's a relationship between the two, I find to be the more interesting part.
 
Honest question...have you ever heard the term redskin be used in an obviously derogatory fashion? I don't know if I've everead heard the term used outside of the context of football and while I don't have any evidence to suggest this other than my own lack of experience with the term but I'd wager most Native Americans (especially the one that are under 50) haven't really experienced it either....although like I said, I could definitely be wrong about that
 
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
I think any number associated with this story is going to be fairly inaccurate due to the fact that the offended population exists as both tribal members and non-tribal members and the inability to really gauge the true number of offended with the way reservations are setup or how prevalent things like telephones, internet, etc are there.

Someone born with no relationship to the tribe is going to naturally feel differently with this issue than someone born and raised being actively involved with tribal goings on.

Asking a diehard Washington fan that's 12.5% Native American whether the mascot offends them proves nothing and has little to do with the heart of this issue.
Click to expand...

They aren't amish holmes - sure there are some reservations that are too far away from populated areas, but thats a small percentage - the vast majority of natives live in urban/suburban areas and have access to internet and phones - and running water and electricity, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top