gritzRgreat

Rolling R-word's (Trademark Pending) updates..

Recommended Posts

Your 2nd paragraph example really isn't the same as what I as saying. Skippy was saying that because George Preston Marshall was racist toward blacks, he must have been racist toward Native Americans as well. I was merely saying that because he was racist toward blacks doesn't necessarily mean he was racist toward Native Americans as well, and I think my points about Marshall associating himself with these people he supposedly hated back me up on that.

Argue these facts:

1. A 2004 poll of Native Americans showed that 90% are not bothered by the name "Redskins."

2. A high school Arizona, which has a population that is 99% Native American, uses the team name "Redskins".

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.

“Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

Indian support for the name “is really a classic case of internalized oppression,” Harjo said. “People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.”

Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

So basically, the poll was a sham.

On top of that, pretty much every Native American organization support the lawsuit (and by proxy the name change).

Ya...so... I'm going to believe 1.2 million actual Native Americans and not a proven racist and some quack 2004 poll of 768 people who "identified themsevles" as Native Americans.

I think you better take me advice. It's only taken two posts from me and your argument has come crumbling down in a embarrassing heap.

As for your second point of debate...

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the term is “very offensive and should be avoided.” But like another infamous racial epithet, the N-word, it has been redefined by some native people as a term of familiarity or endearment, often in abbreviated form, according to Meland, the Indian professor.

So, the term "redskin" has been adopted by some native people as a term up endearment... like the N-word??? Give up. Just admit you'll use any argument, no matter how flimsy, to push your agenda as a Redskins fan.

And in case you are wondering, my info actually comes from within the past decade. :roll:

http://washington.cb...kins-is-a-slur/

One last little nugget I'll leave you with...

And Dietz, the namesake Redskin, may not have even been a real Indian. Dietz served jail time for charges that he falsely registered for the draft as an Indian in order to avoid service. According to an investigation by the Indian Country Today newspaper, he stole the identity of a missing Oglala Sioux man.

Now, 81 years into this jumbled identity tale, the saga seems to finally be coming to a head. The NFL’s tone has shifted over the last few months, from defiance to conciliation.

“If we are offending one person,” Goodell, the NFL commissioner, said last month, “we need to be listening.”

So now THE original Redskin, who Redskins fans say the team was named after to honor, wasn't even a real Native American? Wow. That Marshall argument has no leg to stand on anymore... as if it ever did.

I guess this is the point where I drop my proverbial mic? Your serve, sociopath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and I are on different sides of the name change argument, but this was a very well written and thought out post. A million times better than what I'm reading over at ES.

Anyway, just had to give props. Back to me being snarky.

Whatever your opinion on this argument, it takes a man to send this response.

I read an article the other day which stated that we no longer live in the Information Age. We are stuck in the "Confirmation Age" whereby people only want to "be educated" by information that confirms their own world view. More than anything else, this has had such a negative effect on the recent history of our country and is at the root of the "us against them" mentality.

I just thought it was cool that Paco broke the cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, the poll was a sham.

On top of that, pretty much every Native American organization support the lawsuit (and by proxy the name change).

Ya...so... I'm going to believe 1.2 million actual Native Americans and not a proven racist and some quack 2004 poll of 768 people who "identified themsevles" as Native Americans.

I think you better take me advice. It's only taken two posts from me and your argument has come crumbling down in a embarrassing heap.

As for your second point of debate...

So, the term "redskin" has been adopted by some native people as a term up endearment... like the N-word??? Give up. Just admit you'll use any argument, no matter how flimsy, to push your agenda as a Redskins fan.

And in case you are wondering, my info actually comes from within the past decade. :roll:

http://washington.cb...kins-is-a-slur/

One last little nugget I'll leave you with...

So now THE original Redskin, who Redskins fans say the team was named after to honor, wasn't even a real Native American? Wow. That Marshall argument has no leg to stand on anymore... as if it ever did.

I've dropped my proverbial mic. Your serve, sociopath.

OK, let's assume that Suzan Harjo would give us a fair analysis of that poll. Even if she did, does that take away everything the poll shows us? I don't think we should completely discredit it just because the Native American leading the charge against the name says so.

The group of Native Americans that brought the lawsuit against the Redskins said they had found that "at a minimum," 30% of Native Americans were offended. You totally believe, that don't you? The thought that that particular number is a poor representation never crosses your mind. And so if you're going to discredit the 90%, shall we discredit the 30%? Yes, let's... hmmmmm, what would be a fair number? 25%? 20%? 10%?

You're quoting Suzan Harjo, so allow me to quote Amanda Blackhorse, Navajo activist and plaintiff in the case against the Redskins...

And, you know, in my community, we don’t call each other by the "R" word. I have never heard another Native American person call another Native American person by the "R" word. It’s just not something that we do. We have other names, like Native American, American Indian, or even Indian, but we never call each other by the "R" word.

About your edit... like I said before, it's debatable whether or not the HC was actually Native American, but Marshall did have several Native American players on the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO.

I just read the article in the link you provided.

We just don’t think that (name) is an issue,” Yazzie said. “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”

“Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”

Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. “It more or less shows that they approve of our history,” she said.

North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university’s Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote — after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it.

Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, “I would say I stand with him . we don’t want our history to be forgotten.”

Here's another example...

http://washington.cb...id-change-name/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BREAKING: In landmark decision, U.S. Patent Office cancels trademark for Redskins football team http://thkpr.gs/1qd1vXZ

latest news, it was discovered that over 347,000 US veterans were put on a VA waiting list for receiving needed medical treatment for serious war injuries, but it is comforting to know that 'our' government is on top of this 'Washington &^%skins' evil name thingie, which should be the overwhelming priority, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2...&iref=allsearch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's assume that Suzan Harjo would give us a fair analysis of that poll. Even if she did, does that take away everything the poll shows us? I don't think we should completely discredit it just because the Native American leading the charge against the name says so.

The group of Native Americans that brought the lawsuit against the Redskins said they had found that "at a minimum," 30% of Native Americans were offended. You totally believe, that don't you? The thought that that particular number is a poor representation never crosses your mind. And so if you're going to discredit the 90%, shall we discredit the 30%? Yes, let's... hmmmmm, what would be a fair number? 25%? 20%? 10%?

The poll was of 768 "self identified" Native Americans. There is nothing there to discredit. It's a sham to begin with. The poll might as well have been me going out to a location of my choosing, to a demographic of my choosing, and asking a question without any qualification of the respondent. The 90% is discredited because you don't even know if any of the people polled were actually Native American.

There are two million actual Native Americans actively enrolled in a tribe. A majority of those are represented in the lawsuit. What more do you want? A petition sent around to each and every Native American asking for the signature and the results sent to you? Stop. The fact that so many tribes signed on to the lawsuit is sufficient proof for anyone who isn't a Redskins fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO.

I just read the article in the link you provided.

[/size][/font][/color]

Here's another example...

http://washington.cb...id-change-name/

Yes, the article has presented both sides of the argument and provided an outlet for both. That's why I referenced it. I didn't just dig up some biased smear job.

Clearly, there are some Native Americans who'd rather put their efforts into other things and some who aren't offended at all. Those people probably aren't identified in the lawsuit and it certainly doesn't represent them. That point has never been debated. However the majority of the 2 million active tribe members stand on the other side of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

latest news, it was discovered that over 347,000 US veterans were put on a VA waiting list for receiving needed medical treatment for serious war injuries, but it is comforting to know that 'our' government is on top of this 'Washington &^%skins' evil name thingie, which should be the overwhelming priority, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2...&iref=allsearch

Like I have been saying, political wedge issue to distract you from the real problems in this country.

Yes, the article has presented both sides of the argument and provided an outlet for both. That's why I referenced it. I didn't just dig up some biased smear job.

Clearly, there are some Native Americans who'd rather put their efforts into other things and some who aren't offended at all. Those people probably aren't identified in the lawsuit and it certainly doesn't represent them. That point has never been debated. However the majority of the 2 million active tribe members stand on the other side of the argument.

The 90% or the 30%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's assume that Suzan Harjo would give us a fair analysis of that poll. Even if she did, does that take away everything the poll shows us? I don't think we should completely discredit it just because the Native American leading the charge against the name says so.

The group of Native Americans that brought the lawsuit against the Redskins said they had found that "at a minimum," 30% of Native Americans were offended. You totally believe, that don't you? The thought that that particular number is a poor representation never crosses your mind. And so if you're going to discredit the 90%, shall we discredit the 30%? Yes, let's... hmmmmm, what would be a fair number? 25%? 20%? 10%?

You're quoting Suzan Harjo, so allow me to quote Amanda Blackhorse, Navajo activist and plaintiff in the case against the Redskins...

About your edit... like I said before, it's debatable whether or not the HC was actually Native American, but Marshall did have several Native American players on the team.

So we're lying now, are we?

Karen Kuhlke, the administrative trademark judge, points to resolutions and announcements by the National Congress of American Indians, “the oldest Native American organization composed of tribes from across the United States and structured in a manner to represent the collective opinion of its membership.” The NCAI represented “approximately 30% of Native Americans” in the 1970s, '80s and '90s and repeatedly objected to the term “redskins” during this time.

So, no, 30% isn't just some number you claim this group made up as to how many are offended. The NCAI represents approximately 30% of the Native American population as per the Census total. The NCAI represents the opinions of its members. So, therefore, at least 30% of Native Americans in this country find the name offensive. This is not the erroneous number that you implied it was. It's factual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're lying now, are we?

So, no, 30% isn't just some number you claim this group made up as to how many are offended. The NCAI represents approximately 30% of the Native American population as per the Census total. The NCAI represents the opinions of its members. So, therefore, at least 30% of Native Americans in this country find the name offensive. This is not the erroneous number that you implied it was. It's factual.

Lie: a false statement with a deliberate intent to deceive.

No, that is not a lie. I posted the exact number stated in the article, and then made the assumption that it was fair to lower it, of course keeping in mind the fact that you lowered the 90%. But to be fair, I will give you that it is likely the 30% is more accurate than the 90%. But since it would be unfair to assume that any higher percentage would be accurate, let's leave it at 30%. Is even that number enough to warrant a change? Less than a 3rd? Against the remaining 70% who don't care or even like the name?

You are quite the character. All these posts decrying a supposed "insult", yet then you come back and attempt to insult me? I've been called...hmmm, let me see...dense, a sociopath, and an internet troll. Yes, from the same person who is so concerned about people's feelings. So concerned, in fact, he wants to do away with a supposed Native American slur that 70% of them are not offended by. This same slur that they gave themselves as a sports mascot, which is generally a source of pride. Well, well, well.

@runtherock

The Native Americans first used the word "Redskins."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite humorous when people claim they've been wronged by others through words, and use offending words to state why using offending words is wrong. Their hypocrisy is obvious to everyone but themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Native Americans first used the word "Redskins."

First, there is inconclusive evidence on the name's origin.

Second, even if it is true that the name came from Native Americans, assuming that this dictates the present meaning of the term is called the genealogical fallacy. It presumes that the origin of a term dictates the present connotation of the term. There is no reason to assume that is true.

For example, f-g's original meaning was "a bundle of sticks." Obviously, that is no longer the primary meaning. Even if "redskin" was originally a term of Native American origin, that doesn't mean it couldn't evolve into a slur. Language is constantly evolving, and redskin, is, no matter how you try and cut it, a slur in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there is inconclusive evidence on the name's origin.

Second, even if it is true that the name came from Native Americans, assuming that this dictates the present meaning of the term is called the genealogical fallacy. It presumes that the origin of a term dictates the present connotation of the term. There is no reason to assume that is true.

For example, f-g's original meaning was "a bundle of sticks." Obviously, that is no longer the primary meaning. Even if "redskin" was originally a term of Native American origin, that doesn't mean it couldn't evolve into a slur. Language is constantly evolving, and redskin, is, no matter how you try and cut it, a slur in 2014.

I don't know about that. I thought it was commonly accepted that the Native Americans used the term first to distinguish between themselves and the white people.

But is it a slur if 70% of Native Americans(or 90%, if mayanh8 prefers :D) are not offended by it? I would say a very small minority of black people, if any at all, aren't offended by the N-word. But "Redskins" is obviously a very different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sigh: You all like to keep using that 90% figure from a 10 year old poll in which less than 800 people were polled. On top of the age of the poll is the fact that none of participants were ever proven to even be of Native American descent, the only proof needed was they identified with Native Americans. How about we let the actual Native American tribes decide and stop pretending that 2004 poll was anything but propaganda piece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. I thought it was commonly accepted that the Native Americans used the term first to distinguish between themselves and the white people.

I certainly haven't seen sufficient evidence. But again, the name's origin is merely a footnote with regards to its current connotation.

But is it a slur if 70% of Native Americans(or 90%, if mayanh8 prefers :D) are not offended by it? I would say a very small minority of black people, if any at all, aren't offended by the N-word. But "Redskins" is obviously a very different matter.

Because that survey was poorly executed from a methods standpoint. It allowed for self-identification. That means anybody who heard a rumor that their great great grandma was half Cherokee could identify as Native American. Not exactly the most accurate method.

A more recent survey found that 67% of Native Americans find the term racist. This survey only people who could be verified to be Native American:

http://cips.csusb.ed...ressRelease.pdf

But people will keep trotting out that poorly executed, preaching it as if it were fact, without ever taking a moment to skim how the data was collected. Hey, anything to keep your team's name, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Nocturnal Poisining, that 70% figure I used came from the NCAI.

@Whiskey

I was using the 70% figure to make my point. The 90% part was a joke, for mayanh8's benefit. I'm sure he enjoyed it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Nocturnal Poisining, that 70% figure I used came from the NCAI.

@Whiskey

I was using the 70% figure to make my point. The 90% part was a joke, for mayanh8's benefit. I'm sure he enjoyed it. :D

i dont get it, i dont get why redskins fans are so adamant about clinging to the name, let it go, the name isnt about honor or respect its about exploiting something for personal gain, snyder doesnt care about history and respect and honor nor do redskins fans, they dont proudly wear their redskins jerseys in honor of native americans, they wear them in honor of art monk and joe jacoby and ricky green ect... dont make this something it isnt, its not about honoring anything other than the all mighty dollar.

ditch the name get a new one that doesnt offend millions of people native or not and stop claiming you do so out of pride and honor of native americans, you do so out of pride and honor for a football team not a people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a link to the study?

No.

If you google it, it's referenced in several articles. However, if you're trying to find out the validity of the poll, I can't help you, except for saying that it did come from the NCAI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

If you google it, it's referenced in several articles. However, if you're trying to find out the validity of the poll, I can't help you, except for saying that it did come from the NCAI.

Based on what was posted, you are misreading the sentence. The group represents 30% of native Americans, and that group has objected to the name. In no way does it claim or state that 30% of NA object to the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what was posted, you are misreading the sentence. The group represents 30% of native Americans, and that group has objected to the name. In no way does it claim or state that 30% of NA object to the name.

Ummm... okay?

Perhaps what you're getting at is that my terminology is wrong? If so, I stated it the way the plaintiff did in the suit against the Redskins.

http://www.businessi...ademarks-2014-6

The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly haven't seen sufficient evidence. But again, the name's origin is merely a footnote with regards to its current connotation.

The name means "one who plays professional football for, or is employed by, the team that plays its homes game in Landover, MD."

Prior to the media convincing you that you should be upset, what exactly was the negative connotation? When in your life had you ever heard it spoken in any other context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The name means "one who plays professional football for, or is employed by, the team that plays its homes game in Landover, MD."

Prior to the media convincing you that you should be upset, what exactly was the negative connotation? When in your life had you ever heard it spoken in any other context?

Native Americans have been fighting this name for a long time. Do you really need the negative connotation of the term "redskin" to be explained to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now