Paintrain's all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread (Version 2.0)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

What empirical evidence do you have to support that belief. If the Oneida tribes could have any poll that showed their point of view I believe they would be touting them across all the major networks, and also reference it in that "powerful" ad you linked.

As for what percentage, I think 25-30% would be enough in my opinion. Basically the so-called super majority used in most legislative actions. Dirtbag said it earlier and I agree, if an unbiased authoritative polling institution issued a comprehensive poll that showed that more than 30% of Native Americans felt the name was a major negative influence, then the team ought to begin the process of changing the name. I definitely don't think policy or especially private business ought to be driven by the thought that if only 1 person is offended, basically that creates untenable conditions, and I am willing to bet that you can find one person (or one sliver subgroup) who is/are offended by any type of naming.

CRed, with all respect, dominant culture folks simply took land from Indians, killed them off by the handfuls, and then destroyed their remaining cultures, leaving many of their descendents to eke out a bare existence on reservation lands that often are so bad, no one else wants them.

But if only 24% of Indians oppose the vanity of a sports team nickname because they consider it offensive, the name should stay?

I agree with you that there will always be naysayers. But for me, given historical and current situations, the percentage of opposition needs to be much lower than the 24% you propose for change.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

CRed, with all respect, dominant culture folks simply took land from Indians, killed them off by the handfuls, and then destroyed their remaining cultures, leaving many of their descendents to eke out a bare existence on reservation lands that often are so bad, no one else wants them.

But if only 24% of Indians oppose the vanity of a sports team nickname because they consider it offensive, the name should stay?

I agree with you that there will always be naysayers. But for me, given historical and current situations, the percentage of opposition needs to be much lower than the 24% you propose for change.

and with similar respect, if 76% of any group have found the path towards moving forward doesn't include taking insult in a term, then I think that the general population, and private businesses, should move forward too. If the Redskins actively perpetrated actions against native americans, then that would also be different, but I believe many substantial polls (older I know) show that the name is not used as an opportunity to reinforce a societal denigration of an entire class of people, and instead reflects values of that class that are inspiring - bravery, courage, strength, pride.

I am willing to go out on a limb that if you polled older white americans you would find 20% that would actively want to go back to days where segregation existed( although I have no polls to prove it). But that doesn't make that 20% valid, because the larger white society has moved forward. I know that's a lousy analogy, but it's the best I could do here at work with a headache!

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Heard DS hired a lobbyist firm to take over this issue.

Good move - BA should only have to worry and spend time and effort on football operations, not necessarily PR and senate action issues this is becoming.

Bad - that is a lot of money that could been spent on reducing the cost of parking, upgrading a facility or a zillion other things that could have made the fan or player experience better.

Yeah, here's a link. Great move by Snyder.

Redskins hire lobbying firm after senators call for nickname*change | SI Wire

Originally Posted by Lotus

CRed, with all respect, dominant culture folks simply took land from Indians, killed them off by the handfuls, and then destroyed their remaining cultures, leaving many of their descendents to eke out a bare existence on reservation lands that often are so bad, no one else wants them.

But if only 24% of Indians oppose the vanity of a sports team nickname because they consider it offensive, the name should stay?<snip>

With all due respect to you as well, that first paragraph has very little to do with the name-change issue; the only reason it's even relevant is because we're on the topic of Native Americans.

Yeah, white people invaded the Native American's land and forced the original Americans to find new homes, but we're talking about the nickname of a football team that's meant to honor Native Americans and came about hundreds of years after what you're talking about. Certainly not a reason to change the name.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

With all due respect to you as well, that first paragraph has very little to do with the name-change issue; the only reason it's even relevant is because we're on the topic of Native Americans.

Yeah, white people invaded the Native American's land and forced the original Americans to find new homes, but we're talking about the nickname of a football team that's meant to honor Native Americans and came about hundreds of years after what you're talking about. Certainly not a reason to change the name.

The heart of the issue is respect for Indians, in which case a history of disrespect for Indians is quite relevant.

And it is not "hundreds of years after" what I've been talking about, unless Native Americans were all given back their land overnight and I was not informed. The oppression of indigenous Americans is a continuing story.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The heart of the issue is respect for Indians, in which case a history of disrespect for Indians is quite relevant.

And it is not "hundreds of years after" what I've been talking about, unless Native Americans were all given back their land overnight and I was not informed. The oppression of indigenous Americans is a continuing story.

If respect is the issue we're discussing, then it's useless for me to reply because it's all a matter of opinion. I think that the name was meant to and does honor Native Americans and their heritage; and the polls seem to back me up on that. And I don't think that because the minority finds the name offensive and wants it changed, it should happen. Majority, yes....

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Bunch of assholes.

Read this and weep, oh falsely offended attention-seekers.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

If respect is the issue we're discussing, then it's useless for me to reply because it's all a matter of opinion. I think that the name was meant to and does honor Native Americans and their heritage; and the polls seem to back me up on that. And I don't think that because the minority finds the name offensive and wants it changed, it should happen. Majority, yes....




Read this and weep, oh falsely offended attention-seekers.

Actually respect is not just a matter of opinion.

Several posts here have called for respect for and honoring of Indians. Yet you have argued against these posts because of, in your own words, your opinion.

Therefore you have freely chosen to honor your own opinion instead of showing respect to Indians. While others may still make this claim, it is BS for you to claim that the name "Redskins" honors Indians, because you actually have refused to do so. As such, you are the poster child for the "Redskins name leads to disrespect for Indians" argument.

Congratulations, you have proven right the change-the-name contingent, right before our eyes.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Actually respect is not just a matter of opinion.

Several posts here have called for respect for and honoring of Indians. Yet you have argued against these posts because of, in your own words, your opinion.

Therefore you have freely chosen to honor your own opinion instead of showing respect to Indians. While others may still make this claim, it is BS for you to claim that the name "Redskins" honors Indians, because you actually have refused to do so. As such, you are the poster child for the "Redskins name leads to disrespect for Indians" argument.

Congratulations, you have proven right the change-the-name contingent, right before our eyes.

If you can show me where I directly argued against honoring Native Americans, I'll give you a doughnut.

And when did I refuse to say the name "Redskins" honors Native Americans? I actually did say just that, twice. See posts above.

Also, in reply to your first sentence, I was saying that whatever side of the debate over whether or not the name "Redskins" honored Native Americans you're on is an opinion. While it's technically not, it sort of is, because while there is plenty of evidence that the name does not offend currently and was meant as an honor when it first came into use as this teams name, plenty of people, like you, refuse to see that and claim it's offensive, again, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.