Redskins Offseason Thread

[MTK]

I applaud what the Indians are doing. I’m starting to think the Skins could benefit from a fresh start, new name, new uniforms, maybe new karma?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

I applaud what the Indians are doing. I’m starting to think the Skins could benefit from a fresh start, new name, new uniforms, maybe new karma?

They were bought out...Rob Manfred just announced this:

Sources: Cleveland Indians to host 2019 MLB All-Star Game at Progressive Field | cleveland.com

and a couple days later chief whatever is gone.

quid pro quo


As for the name, im at the point just change it. We spend so much time on things that make zero impact on our society. Im sure these 10% of Indians who are offended will find something else to blame for their problems shortly after the change.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by MTK

I applaud what the Indians are doing. I’m starting to think the Skins could benefit from a fresh start, new name, new uniforms, maybe new karma?

I'm really interested in reading you guys' takes on this matter.

Not being American makes it difficult to have an opinion. I tried to read a lot about it.

It's quite clear it wasn't controversial at all when the name first changed from Braves to Redskins.
I even read article saying there's a controversy on wether the word Redskins comes from a slur used by Europeans to design the Natives or a translation of a word the Natives used to talk about themselves, through the french "Peaux Rouges".

On the other hand, the Washington Post poll claiming 90% of the Natives don't find the Redskins name offensive apparently wasn't really reliable (only 500 respondent, self identified as Native Americans via telephone with no checking of that self identification).

All the articles I found were quite evidently written by somebody supporting one or the other side of this controversy. Hard to make an opinion from these.

At this point, wouldn't one solution for the Redskins be to fund a study, conducted by an independent institution, asking, for say, 2000 truly identified and randomly selected Natives (not voluntaries to respond to the study) if they find the name offensive ?

That way if it turns out the majority of them doesn't find it offensive, it shuts critics up, if it turns out the majority of them does find it offensive, the team can go back to being the Braves without looking like they gave up to a loud minority.
How dumb is this idea?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I'm really interested in reading you guys' takes on this matter.

Not being American makes it difficult to have an opinion. I tried to read a lot about it.

It's quite clear it wasn't controversial at all when the name first changed from Braves to Redskins.
I even read article saying there's a controversy on wether the word Redskins comes from a slur used by Europeans to design the Natives or a translation of a word the Natives used to talk about themselves, through the french "Peaux Rouges".

On the other hand, the Washington Post poll claiming 90% of the Natives don't find the Redskins name offensive apparently wasn't really reliable (only 500 respondent, self identified as Native Americans via telephone with no checking of that self identification).

All the articles I found were quite evidently written by somebody supporting one or the other side of this controversy. Hard to make an opinion from these.

At this point, wouldn't one solution for the Redskins be to fund a study, conducted by an independent institution, asking, for say, 2000 truly identified and randomly selected Natives (not voluntaries to respond to the study) if they find the name offensive ?

That way if it turns out the majority of them doesn't find it offensive, it shuts critics up, if it turns out the majority of them does find it offensive, the team can go back to being the Braves without looking like they gave up to a loud minority.
How dumb is this idea?

CNBC and others followed up the WaPo poll with additional polls, some with more responses, and still found a mix of 85/15 and 80/20 in favor of those saying they're not offended. The opinions of the Native American population continue to reflect those of the broader population.

To me it's simple: the party that stands to be potentially injured by the name is the Native Americans. If you poll them, and you get close to 50/50, then I'd say that calls for a change.

But as long as every poll comes out saying that it doesn't bother the majority of them, then it's fine. I'm not interested in satisfying a whiny minority. I'm interested in what the majority of their ethnic group thinks.

The name should stay unless they say otherwise.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

CNBC and others followed up the WaPo poll with additional polls, some with more responses, and still found a mix of 85/15 and 80/20 in favor of those saying they're not offended. The opinions of the Native American population continue to reflect those of the broader population.

To me it's simple: the party that stands to be potentially injured by the name is the Native Americans. If you poll them, and you get close to 50/50, then I'd say that calls for a change.

But as long as every poll comes out saying that it doesn't bother the majority of them, then it's fine. I'm not interested in satisfying a whiny minority. I'm interested in what the majority of their ethnic group thinks.

The name should stay unless they say otherwise.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. I wasn't aware other polls had been conducted.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

CNBC and others followed up the WaPo poll with additional polls, some with more responses, and still found a mix of 85/15 and 80/20 in favor of those saying they're not offended. The opinions of the Native American population continue to reflect those of the broader population.

To me it's simple: the party that stands to be potentially injured by the name is the Native Americans. If you poll them, and you get close to 50/50, then I'd say that calls for a change.

But as long as every poll comes out saying that it doesn't bother the majority of them, then it's fine. I'm not interested in satisfying a whiny minority. I'm interested in what the majority of their ethnic group thinks.

The name should stay unless they say otherwise.

Agreed. And I thought this controversy was dead and buried with the outcome from the last lawsuit? If the Cleveland Indians decided it was best to remove their logo, then that's fine. However, completely different situation with the Redskins logo. It was created by a Native American Chief. At least, until someone gives me proof that such a story was fabricated, then that's what I'm rolling with. It's not like the Redskins logo is a cartoon depiction. I think it's an honorable logo. Of course, I'm a white guy, so what do I know?

[sdskinsfan2001]

Perks of liking random teams is name changes don't bother me. I was a Sonics fan before they moved to OKC.

The only reason I'm against this change is the reasons for it. If Native Americans largely prefer the name or are indifferent who is everyone else to say they should be offended? Pretty condescending if you ask me. And I don't like kowtowing to the PC crowd because after the name changes they'll just move onto something else to be offended by.

That being said, if we could tie the name change into playing in new stadium back in DC again I'd seriously be torn about changing it. The Piscataway's were native to the DC area. We could still honor native americans and do it with a specific historical flavor to the DC area.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Perks of liking random teams is name changes don't bother me. I was a Sonics fan before they moved to OKC.

The only reason I'm against this change is the reasons for it. If Native Americans largely prefer the name or are indifferent who is everyone else to say they should be offended? Pretty condescending if you ask me. And I don't like kowtowing to the PC crowd because after the name changes they'll just move onto something else to be offended by.

That being said, if we could tie the name change into playing in new stadium back in DC again I'd seriously be torn about changing it. The Piscataway's were native to the DC area. We could still honor native americans and do it with a specific historical flavor to the DC area.

This is kind of how I feel about PC issues. How many people does it take to take action against something? 1? 1,000,000? I'm fairly liberal, but that shit does annoy me especially when the people who care seem to be largely Caucasian.