Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I've seen a poll where it says that most aren't offended and I've seen a poll where it says most are offended. Honestly, I'm not sure that it matters. At what percentage do we decide that the number of people that are offended are significant enough that it is then acceptable to change the teams name? Is it a simple majority at 51%? Perhaps, even 40% will do? My personal opinion is that it makes no difference what these surveys say. When there are several Native American groups actively protesting the name because it is a racist monicker, I think it's safe to say that the name is considered offensive to at least some Native Americans.



Do you mean today or like 10 years ago? Because 10 years ago the majority of hetersexuals thought that equal rights for the homosexual community was a non-starter. Further back, but within my lifetime, the majority of white people thought that racial segregation between whites and blacks wasn't a bad idea. Not too long ago a significant population of Europe thought it was okay to exterminate Jews and Gypsies. Ten years ago nobody really talked too much about the 'Redskins' name. I think ten years from now we'll likely look back with some embarassment that this was even a debate.



Oh boy, I don't know where to start with this. First of all, I think it's foolish to think you can generalize what all "white people" want to do. I have no idea if you're white or not. I don't really care either. I'm taking your opinion as your individual opinion and not as that of fans of Alberta beef everywhere.

Secondly, the cliche you stated about "the more things change the more they stay the same"... tell that to european Jews or African Americans or the LGBT community or any number of oppressed people who were denied equal treatment under the law because they looked different, prayed to a different God or literally loved their fellow man.

To be clear, I am not equating the name of a sports team to that of racial segregation, genocide or gay bashing. But the name of the team is a derogatory racial term. Just because we and many Native Americans have gotten used to hearing it over the last few decades doesn't make it less derogatory.

I honestly can't believe peole are even debating whether this name should be changed. I'd love to hear a really good pro-Redskin argument but the only arguments I've heard thus far are the anti-anti-Redskin arguments.

If I were any whiter I would be clear.

I really don't think a name change should be this big of a deal. There are much greater problems that need to be fixed than a team name with a word no one uses anymore except in regards to the football team

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I really don't think a name change should be this big of a deal. There are much greater problems that need to be fixed than a team name with a word no one uses anymore except in regards to the football team

Yes, I completely agree there are much bigger issues that can certainly be dealt with. I don't think that changing the name of the Washington Redskins is going to prevent anyone anywhere from dealing with those greater problems.

Okay, in personal terms imagine if we were in a room that contained 10 people. 4 of them are white(including you and me), 2 are african american, 2 are latino, 1 asian and 1 native american. We (you and me) are talking to the Native American and one of us calls him a Redskin. He politely informs us that Redskin is considered a pejorative racial term and that he finds it offensive. Do you continue to use that word after you know that he is offended? I'm guessing you don't because most people don't want to offend or hurt other people intentionally (except on the internet or in their cars). So, why is it when a group of people (leaders of their nation, in fact) say to us that the term Redskin is considered a pejorative racial term that we not only continue to use it but actively argue in favour of the term and also claim that there are more important things to worry about?

If it means so little to you but means so much to some Native Americans why all the fuss about keeping the name?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

If I were any whiter I would be clear.



I really don't think a name change should be this big of a deal. There are much greater problems that need to be fixed than a team name with a word no one uses anymore except in regards to the football team

"There are bigger issues" is an irrelevant diversion tactic. Putting focus on this issue doesn't mean that other issues suffer, nor can you prove in any way that if this issue fell out of focus a "bigger" issue would take it's place. Same junk got pulled in the rainbow flag discussion.

"Oh, but there are bigger issues". Yes, there are. Most of the population is able to focus on multiple issues at one time, so trying to discredit one issue on the back of other issues is simply a ploy used by people who are attempting to marginalize an issue without seeming "against it".

I think homelessness in Calgary is a bigger issue than the name "Redskins" personally, but amazingly, I can both give clothes to the homeless AND support the mission some tribes have in getting the name changed to something that isn't racist. I know, I'm clearly an incredible human being.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by strombad

complete lack of comprehension

Funny how you use this phrase and then follow it up doing exactly that. Any group can demonstrate through protest, the Westboro Baptists have been doing so since 1991. The point is that protesters, no matter how long they have been doing it, don't necessarily represent the popular opinion of the issues they are protesting. Meanwhile proper polling is a more accurate way to gauge the public view. And here's a recent shot of the Redskins' protesters:



While you may conclude that I'm "being purposely obtuse," I don't understand your inability to have a calm, rational discussion on this topic. If you have more evidence of all the tribal leaders claiming the term to be racist, please present it and I'll be more inclined to see your point of view. Instead all I see are assumptions about "privileged, middle-aged white men," blanket statements, and veiled insults.

I think this is an important discussion, and I think more voices need to be heard while the facts and history of the issue are shared. I don't get "white guilt" as an explanation as it seems to be more just a case of over sensitive reactions to media shock value reporting. There's a very good documentary just aching to be made about all of this.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Yes, I completely agree there are much bigger issues that can certainly be dealt with. I don't think that changing the name of the Washington Redskins is going to prevent anyone anywhere from dealing with those greater problems.

Okay, in personal terms imagine if we were in a room that contained 10 people. 4 of them are white(including you and me), 2 are african american, 2 are latino, 1 asian and 1 native american. We (you and me) are talking to the Native American and one of us calls him a Redskin. He politely informs us that Redskin is considered a pejorative racial term and that he finds it offensive. Do you continue to use that word after you know that he is offended? I'm guessing you don't because most people don't want to offend or hurt other people intentionally (except on the internet or in their cars). So, why is it when a group of people (leaders of their nation, in fact) say to us that the term Redskin is considered a pejorative racial term that we not only continue to use it but actively argue in favour of the term and also claim that there are more important things to worry about?

If it means so little to you but means so much to some Native Americans why all the fuss about keeping the name?

I think the main issue is that the polls show that it doesn't offend the vast majority of native Americans

[Red Slinger]

^ Until recently "negro" was an acceptable term to describe African Americans and now it's not.

If it is so acceptable to the majority of Native Americans as some of these polls suggest then why is this an issue at all. Why are Native American leaders speaking out? Why is Oneida Nation, American Indian Movement and the National Congress of American Indians involved in protesting the name? If they don't care why do they seem to care? Like I said, I've seen a poll that says that the majority doesn't like the name and I've seen a poll that says they do like the name. A few points:

1) Depending on the language used in a question you can significantly change the result of the answer in a poll
2) Is 51% Native American (or Redskin) concensus required before the name is changed? If not, what percentage is required? At what percentage do we care that people are offended?
3) There are 62 high schools in 22 states continuing to use the Redskins name for their teams, 40% of which have had local efforts to change the name; while 28 high schools in 18 states have dropped the name over the last 25 years. So there has been a fairly significant grass-roots movement to remove the name.
4) The formal protests began in 1988 when the Redskins went to the Superbowl. There was another very large protest in 1992 by Native Minnesotans when the Washington played in the Superbowl. This is not a new issue and it hasn't suddenly popped up in todays PC climate.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

Funny how you use this phrase and then follow it up doing exactly that. Any group can demonstrate through protest, the Westboro Baptists have been doing so since 1991. The point is that protesters, no matter how long they have been doing it, don't necessarily represent the popular opinion of the issues they are protesting. Meanwhile proper polling is a more accurate way to gauge the public view. And here's a recent shot of the Redskins' protesters:







While you may conclude that I'm "being purposely obtuse," I don't understand your inability to have a calm, rational discussion on this topic. If you have more evidence of all the tribal leaders claiming the term to be racist, please present it and I'll be more inclined to see your point of view. Instead all I see are assumptions about "privileged, middle-aged white men," blanket statements, and veiled insults.



I think this is an important discussion, and I think more voices need to be heard while the facts and history of the issue are shared. I don't get "white guilt" as an explanation as it seems to be more just a case of over sensitive reactions to media shock value reporting. There's a very good documentary just aching to be made about all of this.

Surely you can see the difference between a religious sect with well known irrational views and multiple tribes who have taken issue with the name Redskins. I get the point you're trying to make, but it's not valid. I never said that protests spoke for an entire population, I simply said they spoke louder than a 10 year old poll that anyone can answer. Here are some other pictures of protests:


(Congrats on cherry picking a picture of white people to feign a point)

If you'd like to stop moving the goal posts, let me know. I never said all the tribal leaders have claimed the term to be racist, so I'm not sure now why I have to prove a statement that you've created.

But hey, you know what, I'm happy to oblige. So here is proof of ALL tribe leaders claiming the term to be racist:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/1...-redskins.html

The country’s tribal leaders, in Washington this week to meet with President Barack Obama, say the word has always been offensive, given the brutal history that surrounds it.

"It's unacceptable in the 21st century, and I wish the owner of the Washington football team and the NFL would realize that," said Brad Cladoosby, the chairman of Washington state's Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Cladoosby is also the president of the National Congress of American Indians.

While the controversy has smouldered for decades, [b]getting rid of the team name has emerged as a top legislative priority for the leaders of the nation's 566 federally recognized tribes

Good enough for you? Or do you have some other reason not to buy in? Is the leader of every recognized tribe "enough" for you?

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Okay, in personal terms imagine if we were in a room that contained 10 people. 4 of them are white(including you and me), 2 are african american, 2 are latino, 1 asian and 1 native american. We (you and me) are talking to the Native American and one of us calls him a Redskin. He politely informs us that Redskin is considered a pejorative racial term and that he finds it offensive. Do you continue to use that word after you know that he is offended? I'm guessing you don't because most people don't want to offend or hurt other people intentionally (except on the internet or in their cars). So, why is it when a group of people (leaders of their nation, in fact) say to us that the term Redskin is considered a pejorative racial term that we not only continue to use it but actively argue in favour of the term and also claim that there are more important things to worry about?

Interesting hypothetical, but considering the information I've read looking into this issue I'd probably avoid using the term but also ask him why he finds it offensive, hoping he'd be open to a discussion. To answer the second question, I think most people would concede to their request if they felt it was within reason. But I will admit that more voices need to be heard and more debates need to occur. Its ridiculous for anyone to say that this doesn't matter and there are bigger issues to resolve. And my experience has taught me to be suspicious of the motives of any leader (politics, power, money, etc). This goes for both sides as there is money to be lost in changing the name and logo of the team.

But since we are dealing with hypotheticals, how would you feel if any of the other races represented in the room referred to you and your friend as white boys? Would you be offended? Would you bother to speak up?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

^ Until recently "negro" was an acceptable term to describe African Americans and now it's not.

If it is so acceptable to the majority of Native Americans as some of these polls suggest then why is this an issue at all. Why are Native American leaders speaking out? Why is Oneida Nation, American Indian Movement and the National Congress of American Indians involved in protesting the name? If they don't care why do they seem to care? Like I said, I've seen a poll that says that the majority doesn't like the name and I've seen a poll that says they do like the name. A few points:

1) Depending on the language used in a question you can significantly change the result of the answer in a poll
2) Is 51% Native American (or Redskin) concensus required before the name is changed? If not, what percentage is required? At what percentage do we care that people are offended?
3) There are 62 high schools in 22 states continuing to use the Redskins name for their teams, 40% of which have had local efforts to change the name; while 28 high schools in 18 states have dropped the name over the last 25 years. So there has been a fairly significant grass-roots movement to remove the name.
4) The formal protests began in 1988 when the Redskins went to the Superbowl. There was another very large protest in 1992 by Native Minnesotans when the Washington played in the Superbowl. This is not a new issue and it hasn't suddenly popped up in todays PC climate.

1) Very true, which is why in the 2 polls I posted, I made note of he different language being used to describe the opinion.

2) Yes 51% should be required, if it was an issue where the majority of the marginalized group feel strongly enough to be vocal about it, it should be changed. It is not my place as a white person to put words in the mouth of the majority.

3) Who is initiating these movements and supporting them? Is it a majority of the marginalized group or a few passionate people that do not represent the needs of the many? Or is it a third party with "no horse in the race".

4) Absolutely it is an old issue, but people can protest for whatever they wish and for any length of time. If it has been protested for this long and the majority Natives do not feel it is an issue, that takes away most of the argument for changing the name. The length of time it has been protested actually detracts from the argument.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

1) Very true, which is why in the 2 polls I posted, I made note of he different language being used to describe the opinion.



2) Yes 51% should be required, if it was an issue where the majority of the marginalized group feel strongly enough to be vocal about it, it should be changed. It is not my place as a white person to put words in the mouth of the majority.



3) Who is initiating these movements and supporting them? Is it a majority of the marginalized group or a few passionate people that do not represent the needs of the many? Or is it a third party with "no horse in the race".



4) Absolutely it is an old issue, but people can protest for whatever they wish and for any length of time. If it has been protested for this long and the majority Natives do not feel it is an issue, that takes away most of the argument for changing the name. The length of time it has been protested actually detracts from the argument.

Every single tribe leader in the United States.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by strombad

Every single tribe leader in the United States.

Do you really feel it necessary to have passive aggressive overtones and hyperbole in many of your posts? Honestly you're by far the most grating poster on this forum to me. And if that was true would these same tribal leaders call their own schools sports teams "Redskins"?

"There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents".

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/

Sorry but you are just wrong entirely and incredibly arrogant about it.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Do you really feel it necessary to have passive aggressive overtones and hyperbole in many of your posts? Honestly you're by far the most grating poster on this forum to me. And if that was true would these same tribal leaders call their own schools sports teams "Redskins"?



"There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents".



http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/



Sorry but you are just wrong entirely and incredibly arrogant about it.

Actually, I'm not. What I stated is true, and since you clearly didn't catch the evidence, I'll repost it:

The country’s tribal leaders, in Washington this week to meet with President Barack Obama, say the word has always been offensive, given the brutal history that surrounds it.

"It's unacceptable in the 21st century, and I wish the owner of the Washington football team and the NFL would realize that," said Brad Cladoosby, the chairman of Washington state's Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Cladoosby is also the president of the National Congress of American Indians.

While the controversy has smouldered for decades, getting rid of the team name has emerged as a top legislative priority for the leaders of the nation's 566 federally recognized tribes

Sorry, I wasn't using hyperbole. Do you have to call me arrogant and passive aggressive simply because you were wrong and got called out on it? Even the polls you're quoting say that the cultural credentials of the responders are suspect, so you REALLY think that a poll a bunch of white people can answer is a great indicator of whether Native Americans find "Redskin" offensive?

I don't find you all that interesting, but I do find your reaction to being proven wrong most entertaining.

[PaperBagger'14]

You are assuming that because all of the tribal leaders are attending this meeting automatically implies they all want it changed. That is a massive leap to make and has an incredibly tiny chance of being right. This is coupled with the fact that in every single poll it states the majority don't want it changed. You have proved nothing with that article other than you making a massive assumption of the 566 tribes. As for your posting style, I think you are passive aggressive because of comments like "Good enough for you?" And "Being facetious is definitely the best way to disguise lacking a point.". I don't think it's necessary and it comes across as baiting to me in an attempt to anger the other posters who disagree with you.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by strombad

Surely you can see the difference between a religious sect with well known irrational views and multiple tribes who have taken issue with the name Redskins. I get the point you're trying to make, but it's not valid. I never said that protests spoke for an entire population, I simply said they spoke louder than a 10 year old poll that anyone can answer. Here are some other pictures of protests:
(Congrats on cherry picking a picture of white people to feign a point)
If you'd like to stop moving the goal posts, let me know. I never said all the tribal leaders have claimed the term to be racist, so I'm not sure now why I have to prove a statement that you've created.
But hey, you know what, I'm happy to oblige. So here is proof of ALL tribe leaders claiming the term to be racist:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/1...-redskins.html
Good enough for you? Or do you have some other reason not to buy in? Is the leader of every recognized tribe "enough" for you?

I don't know why you'd quote the term enough as I never used that. But you are starting to get the point. Referencing a published piece works better than Its racists. They hate it. You're stupid.

The point you were trying to make:

Most polls I've seen referenced list the opposition as very minimal towards Redskins.

Then you clearly didn't see the "poll" where they protested a Redskins game. Or you know, the protests that have been going on for 25 years...

is to invalidate the polls because of the people gathered to protest. A protest may "speak louder," but their opinions don't carry more weight than the opinions provided in the polls.
Nice cherry picked picture of 3 people though.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

You are assuming that because all of the tribal leaders are attending this meeting automatically implies they all want it changed. That is a massive leap to make and has an incredibly tiny chance of being right. This is coupled with the fact that in every single poll it states the majority don't want it changed. You have proved nothing with that article other than you making a massive assumption of the 566 tribes. As for your posting style, I think you are passive aggressive because of comments like "Good enough for you?" And "Being facetious is definitely the best way to disguise lacking a point.". I don't think it's necessary and it comes across as baiting to me in an attempt to anger the other posters who disagree with you.

All 566 support the cause, as does the man they elected as the leader of the National Congress of American Indians.

They all went to lobby Obama to do something, so I'm safe in my assumption that they entire group of people who went to lobby one particular thing believe in that one particular thing. Are you instead suggesting that hundreds of tribe leaders who went to Washington in support of lobbying the president to encourage the change of the Redskins name do not, in fact, support the cause they lobbied for? Is that what you're suggesting?

Your comparison between hundreds of tribal leaders supporting a cause and a poll that polled anyone who would answer (regardless of cultural credibility) is inane.

If I'm making an assumption of 566 tribal leaders, I'm making the very same assumption as every journalist who reported on that event.

Your argument is dead.

[Alberta_Beef]

There is something else being forgotten/ignored here.

The Washington Redskins are a private entity and no one other than the owner (or I guess the NFL if they try and force the change) can decide what the name/logo will be. Because the government won't be able to force anything.

Now why would he change the name/logo that has been around 80 years on his dime? Their merchandise sales don't seem to be hurt, neither are their ticket sales. He has no motivation to change the name at all, especially since it will cost him millions of dollars to do so.

Fact of the matter is unless someone else is willing to compensate the owner of the Redskins nothing will change.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by strombad

All 566 support the cause, as does the man they elected as the leader of the National Congress of American Indians.

They all went to lobby Obama to do something, so I'm safe in my assumption that they entire group of people who went to lobby one particular thing believe in that one particular thing. Are you instead suggesting that hundreds of tribe leaders who went to Washington in support of lobbying the president to encourage the change of the Redskins name do not, in fact, support the cause they lobbied for? Is that what you're suggesting?

Your comparison between hundreds of tribal leaders supporting a cause and a poll that polled anyone who would answer (regardless of cultural credibility) is inane.

If I'm making an assumption of 566 tribal leaders, I'm making the very same assumption as every journalist who reported on that event.

Your argument is dead.

If you truly believe every person that goes to a meeting is completely unified in their opinion of a topic and justify it because "why else would they go?" I don't believe there is any point in discussing this further. And I would like to quote you from another thread and say "Just because you say "wrong" doesn't mean that it's actually wrong". Some serious hypocrisy right here .

[corporatejay]

1) NFL could effectively force them.

2) there has been as suggestion that under u.s. Law you cannot trademark racist terms. Losing their trademark would effectively force them to change it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Fact of the matter is unless someone else is willing to compensate the owner of the Redskins nothing will change.

This is why I'm not going to put much more effort into this discussion. Dan Snyder will never change the name. Never. It kind of renders this whole discussion as irrelevant unless maybe one day he has a change of heart but I doubt that as to him it's not about money. If anyone thinks that media pressure or even government pressure will persuade him they really don't have a clue about Dan Snyder.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

I don't know why you'd quote the term enough as I never used that. But you are starting to get the point. Referencing a published piece works better than Its racists. They hate it. You're stupid.



The point you were trying to make:





is to invalidate the polls because of the people gathered to protest. A protest may "speak louder," but their opinions don't carry more weight than the opinions provided in the polls.

Nice cherry picked picture of 3 people though.

I have no idea what the first half of your post is trying to say.

Regarding the second half however, pretty basic stuff. The polls are meaningless because they weren't polling Native Americans. The polls literally have zero value. The protests, while not an accurate representation of the population, actually involve Native Americans in the majority. That's a much more reliable poll to me.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Sorry, taking one of two or three pictures showing white people protesting the name while ignoring the hundreds of pictures showing Native Americans protesting the name is cherry picking. Learn the phrase before you use it.