Breaking : Washington Redskins Football Team Likely To Change Name Under Pressure From Sponsors
community » Discussions » Category » News & Politics » Discussion » Breaking : Washington Redskins Football Team Likely To Change Name Under Pressure From Sponsors
By: john-russell • 4 years ago • 143 comments
Faced with financial losses as merchandising partners threaten to cut ties with the team, the ownership of the Washington Redskins NFL team announced today that it will review the franchises name for the future, seen as a sure sign that the 'Redskins' name is history.
If there is one truism about Washington it’s that money talks. It talks so loudly that even iron held positions can be reversed, flipped and scrubbed away.
“We’ll never change the name,” Washington owner Dan Snyder told USA Today in 2013 of the “Redskins." “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”
“In light of recent events around the country and feedback from our community, the Washington Redskins are announcing the team will undergo a thorough review of the team’s name,” the statement read. “This review formalizes the initial discussions the team has been having with the league in recent weeks.”
There is almost zero chance the review will side with the status quo.
Money matters in the end, more than principle. That’s the reality of entrenched positions. This is America, after all.
Essentially, they K-Streeted the name.
There will be celebrations but also howling. There will be protests and even sworn off fandom. There will be those cursing the “cancel culture” that each side of the political spectrum loves to swing — indeed, some will cancel their own association with the team because the team canceled the name because corporations canceled their checks because they were worried customers would cancel purchases.
There will be those who continue to swear the term isn’t racist, let alone just insulting, confrontational or just plain rude.
You can debate it all amongst yourself. Getting this upset over a team name seems like a waste of energy but, this is America and a lot of you care more deeply about this than that sorry franchise does about winning.
Consider this though, even if you can dig up some poll or find some Native American who isn’t offended, if you happened to walk up upon a group of Native Americans, would you greet them by shouting, “Hey, Redskins"?
Would you do so believing you were conveying actual respect? Would you think that was a welcoming gesture?
Perhaps they can do what my high school team, the Arvada Redskins did.....skip to the 90's when the name change came. The mascot is now a bulldog. Arvada is a suburb Northwest of Denver.
George Armstrong Custer was considered a great American hero at one time. A martyr even. You don't find that opinion much anymore. Things change. The name "Redskins" for a football team was always headed for the dustbin of history. People want a more inclusive country now.
In 2016, the Washington Post surveyed Indians if the name bothered them.
90%, whether in a tribe or not, were not bothered.
Paternalistic white liberals were outraged on their behalf. Because the vast majority of Indians who weren't outraged don't understand the situation like they do from their gated communities.
The half dozen or so members of Newstalkers who claim some American Indian heritage have all said (to the best of my knowledge) the name should be changed. Who are you to say they are wrong?
And Sean, it's a bunch of pure bullshyte as has been pointed out to you and others before.
WaPo's poll was conducted with 504 respondents -
Adrienne Keene , Ed.D responded that the poll uses faulty data and methods, such as the continuing problem of self-identification, and the reporting of the results misses the point regarding objections to the name established by social science research and the authentic voices of Native Americans as being about real harms, not individual feelings. NCAI Executive Director Jacqueline Pata stated, "The survey doesn't recognize the psychological impacts these racist names and imagery have on American Indian and Alaska Natives. It is not respectful to who we are as Native people. This poll still doesn't make it right." Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Nation criticized the poll for "never ask[ing] the people if the name should change" and that "no other community's ever been asked to justify their existence or deny their degradation through poll testing - not the African-American community, Latino community or Asian community, no one."
Addressing the problems with the prior telephone polls, the 2020 Berkeley/Michigan University study asked questions regarding offensiveness of team names and fan behavior with more than two options, and details to determine the strength of respondents Native identification.
The Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) issued a statement calling the publication of the poll, and the reporting of its significance, as not only inaccurate and misleading but unethical. "The reporters and editors behind this story must have known that it would be used as justification for the continued use of these harmful, racist mascots. They were either willfully malicious or dangerously naïve in the process and reporting used in this story, and neither is acceptable from any journalistic institution."
While not addressing the NAJA criticism, the WaPo editorial board maintained its prior position that the name is a slur and that they will avoid its use as much as possible. However, one WaPo editor and advocate for change, Robert McCartney, has decided to drop any further protest in light of the poll results. The editorial board reiterated their advocacy of name change in 2019, citing the opposition of Native American tribes that has resulted in the retirement of Native mascots by high schools.
A Los Angeles Times editorial cites the evidence that the name is offensive to many, which the poll does not change given its questionable representation of Native American opinion.
So it's just the usual assault on polls where the result isn't what was wanted. This is a valid poll from a news organization that is hostile to the name Redskins.
90% is 90%. This is not within the margin of error.
Per real clear politics, the final poll average was off by 1.2 points. Out of the 11 polls they track, the biggest miss was 4 points. All were within the margin of error.
Are you claiming the poll by the Washington Post, an independent news organization, was off by at least 40 points? If you want to argue the Washington Post poll was off by twice as much as the worst poll in 2016, it still doesn't come close to changing anything.
90%, whether in a tribe or not, were not bothered.
And they shouldn't be. Because nobody with any sense thinks the team is called Redskins for the purpose of disparaging Native Americans. It's clearly to celebrate them. However, if they do change the name, I would hope they would just give the team a different Indian kind of name. Like, make it specific to some tribe or collection of tribes.
Yeah. I know that for decades, it has been intended to celebrate and honor the heritage of Native Americans. That is the relevant history. If you don't know that, then sorry, but you don't know shit about football or the Redskins franchise.
The fact that the team owner announced they are reviewing the name is a good indication it will change. Otherwise he wouldn't have said anything. There isnt really a way to split the difference.
Wouldn't it be more productive to just get rid of the NFL? As long as the NFL continues there will always be a chance that someone will be offended. The only way to completely and permanently end racism in the NFL is to do away with the NFL.
It appears to bother you that a marginalized group like American Indians "complain" about an insulting sports team nickname. I guess you'll tell me that Nordic people might object to the name "Vikings" , but Nordic people are not historically marginalized. It's a pity that people like you cannot see the difference.
It appears to bother you that a marginalized group like American Indians "complain" about an insulting sports team nickname. I guess you'll tell me that Nordic people might object to the name "Vikings" , but Nordic people are not historically marginalized. It's a pity that people like you cannot see the difference.
Doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants to be offended, that's their business. What is concerning is that everyone just stands around and pees down their legs.
You do know that the origin for the name Minnesota was the Dakota people's name for the Minnesota River? After all, Minnesota was responsible for the largest mass hanging of Dakota people in history. The name Minnesota Vikings not only appropriates Indian culture, it celebrates killing American Indians, too. Now you have something else to pee down your legs about.
You do know that the origin for the name Minnesota was the Dakota people's name for the Minnesota River? After all, Minnesota was responsible for the largest mass hanging of Dakota people in history. The name Minnesota Vikings not only appropriates Indian culture, it celebrates killing American Indians, too.
A ridiculous stretch, but when you have little ammunition you have to improvise.
A ridiculous stretch, but when you have little ammunition you have to improvise.
Oh, that's right. Minnesota is in flyover country and isn't important except for police murdering Black people.
How about the Miami Dolphins? Miami is named after the Mayaimi American Indian tribe that lived around Lake Okeechobee and who are now extinct. Completely wiped out, gone forever. Genocide. At the very least, that should provide an opportunity to pee down the legs over the Trail of Tears.
It appears to bother you that a marginalized group like American Indians "complain"
I think it borders on racism to imply that all native people feel the same way about something simply on the basis of their ancestry. Some native people complain about the Redskin name. Others like it. Still others don't care.
but Nordic people are not historically marginalized.
Sure they were. It just depends on the perspective, place, and the time period we are talking about. The "vikings" as you mention, are reviled throughout European history as vicious marauders. Savage brutes bent on rape and conquest. The scourge of civilization. There are movies and TV shows being made right now that depict them in exactly that light.
In reality, like any society or civilization, they were ordinary people with families and rich traditions. They were intelligent, creative, and innovative. All of that gets pushed aside for the sake of a sports mascot, but only people looking for something to complain about would be upset by that.
when the left is done with the washington redskins they should go after the red mesa redskins. How dare they be so racist!
I doubt if anybody supporting the name change reads this link, but to quote school superintendent Tommie Yazzie, “I don’t find it derogatory. It’s a source of pride.”
I find it quite amazing that a group of white people on this forum is so immersed in Native American culture and history that they feel that they can speak for Natives. What an amazing sense of superiority to think that you, as non-native, can speak for us and better yet tell us what is and isn't insulting to us.
In your infinite wisdom do you tell Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, etc etc what is insulting to them and what isn't?
A quick note about the so-called poll. 504 people were contacted by phone and asked if they were NA. All the those that responded were self-identified natives and the majority didn't know what tribe or people they came from or were related to.
There have been polls done within Indian Country that contradict the Washington poll, but they were real Indians with tribal affiliation and membership that responded. Just think real Indians vs a voice on the phone that says they are Indians.
A huge number of organizations, tribes, foundations, and individuals have protested the name and strongly support a change in names. They represent the majority of Native Americans.
The following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association
WIEA "Indian" Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)
Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan)
Youth "Indian" Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin)
After accepting $200,000 from the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation for the prior year, the Indian National Finals Rodeo (INFR), which says it is the U.S.' and Canada's largest rodeo organization for Native Americans, sent a letter refusing any further donations. INFR Vice President Michael Bo Vocu stated "After much soul searching, we have decided that we cannot in good conscience accept resources from you on the terms you have offered, no matter how desperately we need it ... because, as you know, the resources you are offering are not truly philanthropic -- they come with the expectation that we will support the racial slur that continues to promote your associated professional football team's name." Last year the Redskins primary logo appeared at many Native rodeo events, creating a backlash from those offended by it. [29]
Interviews at a powwow in Towson, Maryland , find several Native Americans who favor a change of the Redskins name. [30]
These Native Americans have put their opposition to the Redskins' name on the public record:
Sherman Alexie ( Spokane , author): "Most, you know, at least half the country thinks the mascot issue is insignificant. But I think it's indicative of the ways in which Indians have no cultural power." [31]
Bruce Anderson ( Coquille people ): "I challenge [owner Dan Snyder] to focus on winning ... but also an opportunity for me to simply sit with my grandchildren to watch my former team without having to cut through the racial stereotypes." [32]
Irene Bedard ( Inupiat , Inuit and Métis , actress): She's really upset about some of the costumes the cheerleaders have worn through the years -- calling them over sexualized and "degrading" to proud Native American women like herself. [34]
Notah Begay (Navajo, PGA pro golfer) called the Redskins' name "a very clear example of institutionalized degradation of an ethnic minority." [35]
Gregg Deal (Paiute Tribe of Pyramid Lake, artist/activist, and DC Area resident): "People aren't just emboldened by their team to treat poorly those of us that would oppose such "honor." They are actually empowered in being aggressive to the point of assault, verbal or physical, threatened or made good. I live in a world where I must coach my children not to talk about such things publicly in school because a classmate may come at them, or even a teacher. The threat of aggression because of who we are is real and enabled by the Washington Redskins. That is not a complaint; that is the truth." [39]
Jim Enote (Zuni), director of the A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage Center in New Mexico [41] [42]
Louise Erdrich ( Chippewa , novelist/poet) – "It's more than a stereotype, it's an insult, and they don't have to perpetuate it." [43]
Donna Fann-Boyle (Choctaw/Cherokee, activist) [44]
Claudia Fox Tree (Arawak, teacher) – "It's part of a much larger issue in that those sort of depictions are our only representation in modern America. It isn't just the sin of stereotypes and misinformation, it's the sin of absence – of not seeing yourself or the people you come from anywhere, of not seeing any contemporary images." [45]
Gyasi Ross (Blackfeet Nation/Suquamish Territories, author/attorney): Regarding team supporters citing larger issue faced by Native Americans than a team name, "Native people shouldn't be forced to choose between living or racial discrimination. Those are false binaries." [59]
Shoni Schimmel ( Umatilla , Louisville Cardinals guard, class of 2015) [60]
W. Richard West Jr. (Cheyenne, President of the Autry National Center in Los Angeles): Redskin is "an openly derogatory term. It always is and it always has been." West also characterizes the Original American's Foundation as an "attempt to divert attention from the fact that his team's nickname is coming under increasing heat from people who think it's an offensive racial term." [63]
Of course, there are many more to add, but that gives you an idea (I hope) that this is an insult to most Natives.
As I've said before if your so sure in your belief that the name isn't insulting please feel free to call a group of Native Americans Redskins and tell them you're honoring them. Be sure to do it face to face.
Trump has spoke for an hour standing on Indian land appropriated by the American government and has not said one word about the Indian people. Not a word.
Anyway, remember, in his mind, it's his generals, his army, his DOJ, his judges, and his Federal Land.When he sings "This Land is My Land..." he means exclusively.
Like every other President before him. Or do you think Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, or any other President thought differently? Generals can be removed at any time by the President. Obama proved that repeatedly, if any General didn't toe the line with the way he wanted Afghanistan (especially) or Iraq fought they were gone. Deploying and recalling the military is an exclusive right of the Executive Branch. And as both Trump and Obama have proven through EO's and EA's federal lands can be made into National Forests, wildlife preserves, or be marked as non development zones for industry; and taken back just as quickly. Federal attorneys can be fired at a whim, both Clinton and Obama cleaned house as soon as took office firing every last one of them, and appointing new ones that better suited their agenda. Presidents nominate federal judges at every level including the Supreme Court. The judges they get appointed will be around far after they leave office making decisions that affect everyone. The AG is a part of the Executive Branch and also an appointee of the President.
So what is your point again besides more rampant TDS?
Trump is acting no differently then any of the past presidents. It is called the trappings of power; and each succeeding President has increased the power of the office. Trump is actually failing at that job; or course following Obama, how could he ever hope to succeed?
Want a major overreach? Try Obama's EA on DACA, after saying repeatedly that the Constitution didn't give him the power. It has put in place a system the Supreme Court ruled cannot be removed; even though it is illegal, and Trump has reversed Obama's EA. Nothing like rampant TDS to force the Executive branch to violate Constitutional law. The court isn't even bothering to deny the fact they are telling Trump to break the law. Of course the left forget the law of unintended consequences. Now anyone can argue an EO/EA is the same damn thing as a law. With the precedent set the Supreme Court will have to listen to the next case demanding an EO/EA be left in place.
Hey, how about Obama abusing the War on Terror Act and invading Syria? Syria never invited US forces in, they didn't ask for our help. They have told us to leave several times. Yet thanks to Obama, and the rampant TDS driven Chicken Hawk left we are still there. Still wasting US money fighting a war no one wants us to be involved in. Our moronic NATO allies (France and Britain), who had the most to gain, fled months ago; after promising to take over US responsibilities. Trump set the pullout date for US forces, and our "allies" beat us to the exit.
Or take Libya. Obama completely ignored the War Powers Act. To the point members of his own party tried to take him to court! Obama thought he was smarter than all of his Generals, who warned him that he would destabilize the country. Instead Obama listened to the worst judge of character ever, Hillary Clinton, who never met a military engagement she didn't like. Wonderful piece of shit Obama turned that country into. Imagine Trump ever attempting to do the same. The left would lose it and try to impeach him again!
But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!! We know, we know. Living rent free in TDS driven peoples' heads 24/7.
Washington Sellouts- Uniforms might be difficult, but the team will accurately depict the political atmosphere of the area. Maybe they can use all of the corporate and special interest group logos that give money to politicians. They would look more like NASCAR uniforms, but since the NFL is trying to follow NASCAR's horrendous business model- it would be appropriate.
Washington Traitors- Why not? All politicians are. That is not including the real traitors hiding in the shadows.
Washington Criminals- The team logo and colors can change by which party holds the White House; or by which ever party currently has someone under indictment at the Federal level.
Washington PC- The logo and team colors can be changed to match whatever is currently in with the PC crew. Advertisement space on uniforms can be sold to PC special interest groups that are very controversial and divisive. Again following the NASCAR business model to failure. I am sure BLM would love another platform; and Antifa would love to start a mainstream one.
Washington Rainbow Warriors- I was a Jeff Gordon fan. Maybe DuPont can buy the team? Of course that name might piss off two factions at once. Wonder which one would rank higher on the left's social outrage status?
I was always under the impression that a "mascot" or team name, was to convey strength, ability, and greatness. WTF is wrong with people. Redskins is in no fucking way was meant to be disrespectful. Wake the hell up people and see what is going on here.
Perhaps they can do what my high school team, the Arvada Redskins did.....skip to the 90's when the name change came. The mascot is now a bulldog. Arvada is a suburb Northwest of Denver.
Washington Warrens?
George Armstrong Custer was considered a great American hero at one time. A martyr even. You don't find that opinion much anymore. Things change. The name "Redskins" for a football team was always headed for the dustbin of history. People want a more inclusive country now.
How bout the Washington Monuments?
No way. Can't be naming anything for someone people now hate.
In 2016, the Washington Post surveyed Indians if the name bothered them.
90%, whether in a tribe or not, were not bothered.
Paternalistic white liberals were outraged on their behalf. Because the vast majority of Indians who weren't outraged don't understand the situation like they do from their gated communities.
The half dozen or so members of Newstalkers who claim some American Indian heritage have all said (to the best of my knowledge) the name should be changed. Who are you to say they are wrong?
If 10 people claim on a website claim Donald Trump is the greatest President ever, do they speak for all Americans?
90% is a massive majority.
I believe there was a problem with that poll, but Kavika or 1st warrior would remember that better than me.
And Sean, it's a bunch of pure bullshyte as has been pointed out to you and others before.
WaPo's poll was conducted with 504 respondents -
Adrienne Keene , Ed.D responded that the poll uses faulty data and methods, such as the continuing problem of self-identification, and the reporting of the results misses the point regarding objections to the name established by social science research and the authentic voices of Native Americans as being about real harms, not individual feelings. NCAI Executive Director Jacqueline Pata stated, "The survey doesn't recognize the psychological impacts these racist names and imagery have on American Indian and Alaska Natives. It is not respectful to who we are as Native people. This poll still doesn't make it right." Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Nation criticized the poll for "never ask[ing] the people if the name should change" and that "no other community's ever been asked to justify their existence or deny their degradation through poll testing - not the African-American community, Latino community or Asian community, no one."
Addressing the problems with the prior telephone polls, the 2020 Berkeley/Michigan University study asked questions regarding offensiveness of team names and fan behavior with more than two options, and details to determine the strength of respondents Native identification.
The Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) issued a statement calling the publication of the poll, and the reporting of its significance, as not only inaccurate and misleading but unethical. "The reporters and editors behind this story must have known that it would be used as justification for the continued use of these harmful, racist mascots. They were either willfully malicious or dangerously naïve in the process and reporting used in this story, and neither is acceptable from any journalistic institution."
While not addressing the NAJA criticism, the WaPo editorial board maintained its prior position that the name is a slur and that they will avoid its use as much as possible. However, one WaPo editor and advocate for change, Robert McCartney, has decided to drop any further protest in light of the poll results. The editorial board reiterated their advocacy of name change in 2019, citing the opposition of Native American tribes that has resulted in the retirement of Native mascots by high schools.
A Los Angeles Times editorial cites the evidence that the name is offensive to many, which the poll does not change given its questionable representation of Native American opinion.
So it's just the usual assault on polls where the result isn't what was wanted. This is a valid poll from a news organization that is hostile to the name Redskins.
90% is 90%. This is not within the margin of error.
Maybe it was one of those +/- 40% polls.
Maybe we should also discuss the last election Sean. Lots of polls showing Hillary winning. How accurate were those?
No, you have to be a practicing Indian. Not someone who knew someone in their family was Indian and nothing else. It has zero to do with purity.
Well, the National polls had her winning by 3 points I believe. I don’t remember them claiming she had 90% support.
Sean,
99% of the polls showed her far more popular than Trump and winning by a good margin. How accurate were they?
Per real clear politics, the final poll average was off by 1.2 points. Out of the 11 polls they track, the biggest miss was 4 points. All were within the margin of error.
Are you claiming the poll by the Washington Post, an independent news organization, was off by at least 40 points? If you want to argue the Washington Post poll was off by twice as much as the worst poll in 2016, it still doesn't come close to changing anything.
And they shouldn't be. Because nobody with any sense thinks the team is called Redskins for the purpose of disparaging Native Americans. It's clearly to celebrate them. However, if they do change the name, I would hope they would just give the team a different Indian kind of name. Like, make it specific to some tribe or collection of tribes.
Woah.. that's too much common sense.
You'd think anyone who took 5 minutes to look around and see what teams are named for and why, would be able to figure that out.
No football team is called the "yellow bellied cowards." But hey, it's 2020, I guess "the oppressed" or the "victims" would be fitting.
How are you celebrating us? By referring to scalping?
Tacos - you do know the history behind that name, right?
How 'bout telling us just what the name Redskins means to Native Americans.
How 'bout doing that - huh? C'mon - educate us.
Washington Jews - Washington Spics - Washington Blackies - Washington Bitches - Washington Wops - Washington Whities - Washington Idiots.
Much better names, eh?
That's not referring to scalping, and that's been shown to you before.
Redskins is just another word for Indians, and was used by Indians to describe themselves as was documented above..
Any word can be "used pejoratively"
Yeah. I know that for decades, it has been intended to celebrate and honor the heritage of Native Americans. That is the relevant history. If you don't know that, then sorry, but you don't know shit about football or the Redskins franchise.
Meh we'll see, this is hardly the first time this and other sports teams have been pressured to change their name
The fact that the team owner announced they are reviewing the name is a good indication it will change. Otherwise he wouldn't have said anything. There isnt really a way to split the difference.
Just like they have every other time this has come up and the name hasn't changed.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't John. Personally I don't much care either way it goes, like I said we'll see.
Wouldn't it be more productive to just get rid of the NFL? As long as the NFL continues there will always be a chance that someone will be offended. The only way to completely and permanently end racism in the NFL is to do away with the NFL.
Hey Ho, the NFL has got to Go!
It appears to bother you that a marginalized group like American Indians "complain" about an insulting sports team nickname. I guess you'll tell me that Nordic people might object to the name "Vikings" , but Nordic people are not historically marginalized. It's a pity that people like you cannot see the difference.
Doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants to be offended, that's their business. What is concerning is that everyone just stands around and pees down their legs.
You do know that the origin for the name Minnesota was the Dakota people's name for the Minnesota River? After all, Minnesota was responsible for the largest mass hanging of Dakota people in history. The name Minnesota Vikings not only appropriates Indian culture, it celebrates killing American Indians, too. Now you have something else to pee down your legs about.
Hey Ho, the NFL has got to go!
A ridiculous stretch, but when you have little ammunition you have to improvise.
Oh, that's right. Minnesota is in flyover country and isn't important except for police murdering Black people.
How about the Miami Dolphins? Miami is named after the Mayaimi American Indian tribe that lived around Lake Okeechobee and who are now extinct. Completely wiped out, gone forever. Genocide. At the very least, that should provide an opportunity to pee down the legs over the Trail of Tears.
Hey Ho, the NFL has got to go!
I think it borders on racism to imply that all native people feel the same way about something simply on the basis of their ancestry. Some native people complain about the Redskin name. Others like it. Still others don't care.
Sure they were. It just depends on the perspective, place, and the time period we are talking about. The "vikings" as you mention, are reviled throughout European history as vicious marauders. Savage brutes bent on rape and conquest. The scourge of civilization. There are movies and TV shows being made right now that depict them in exactly that light.
In reality, like any society or civilization, they were ordinary people with families and rich traditions. They were intelligent, creative, and innovative. All of that gets pushed aside for the sake of a sports mascot, but only people looking for something to complain about would be upset by that.
Can't argue with that.
Little Napoleon has his favorites. If you are not one of them there is nothing the NFL cannot do to make your career shorter, and your wallet liter.
when the left is done with the washington redskins they should go after the red mesa redskins. How dare they be so racist!
I doubt if anybody supporting the name change reads this link, but to quote school superintendent Tommie Yazzie, “I don’t find it derogatory. It’s a source of pride.”
Hail To The Redskins
I have been a Redskins and Raiders fan since I knew what a football was but lately I have fast been losing interest what Roger Goodell is ruining
Somebody will find fault with any name they would change it to,
I find it quite amazing that a group of white people on this forum is so immersed in Native American culture and history that they feel that they can speak for Natives. What an amazing sense of superiority to think that you, as non-native, can speak for us and better yet tell us what is and isn't insulting to us.
In your infinite wisdom do you tell Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, etc etc what is insulting to them and what isn't?
A quick note about the so-called poll. 504 people were contacted by phone and asked if they were NA. All the those that responded were self-identified natives and the majority didn't know what tribe or people they came from or were related to.
There have been polls done within Indian Country that contradict the Washington poll, but they were real Indians with tribal affiliation and membership that responded. Just think real Indians vs a voice on the phone that says they are Indians.
A huge number of organizations, tribes, foundations, and individuals have protested the name and strongly support a change in names. They represent the majority of Native Americans.
The following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:
Tribes [ edit ]
Organizations [ edit ]
After accepting $200,000 from the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation for the prior year, the Indian National Finals Rodeo (INFR), which says it is the U.S.' and Canada's largest rodeo organization for Native Americans, sent a letter refusing any further donations. INFR Vice President Michael Bo Vocu stated "After much soul searching, we have decided that we cannot in good conscience accept resources from you on the terms you have offered, no matter how desperately we need it ... because, as you know, the resources you are offering are not truly philanthropic -- they come with the expectation that we will support the racial slur that continues to promote your associated professional football team's name." Last year the Redskins primary logo appeared at many Native rodeo events, creating a backlash from those offended by it. [29]
Individuals [ edit ]
Interviews at a powwow in Towson, Maryland , find several Native Americans who favor a change of the Redskins name. [30]
These Native Americans have put their opposition to the Redskins' name on the public record:
Civil rights and religious organizations [ edit ]
Of course, there are many more to add, but that gives you an idea (I hope) that this is an insult to most Natives.
As I've said before if your so sure in your belief that the name isn't insulting please feel free to call a group of Native Americans Redskins and tell them you're honoring them. Be sure to do it face to face.
Cleveland Indians announced today they're reviewing their name. Who's next on the chopping block, the Chicago Blackhawks?
It won't be their first time
He was too preoccupied musing about whether Lincoln's face could be redone to look like his own.
Anyway, remember, in his mind, it's his generals, his army, his DOJ, his judges, and his Federal Land.
When he sings "This Land is My Land..." he means exclusively.
Like every other President before him. Or do you think Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, or any other President thought differently? Generals can be removed at any time by the President. Obama proved that repeatedly, if any General didn't toe the line with the way he wanted Afghanistan (especially) or Iraq fought they were gone. Deploying and recalling the military is an exclusive right of the Executive Branch. And as both Trump and Obama have proven through EO's and EA's federal lands can be made into National Forests, wildlife preserves, or be marked as non development zones for industry; and taken back just as quickly. Federal attorneys can be fired at a whim, both Clinton and Obama cleaned house as soon as took office firing every last one of them, and appointing new ones that better suited their agenda. Presidents nominate federal judges at every level including the Supreme Court. The judges they get appointed will be around far after they leave office making decisions that affect everyone. The AG is a part of the Executive Branch and also an appointee of the President.
So what is your point again besides more rampant TDS?
Yes. That's my point.
You had no point other than TDS.
Trump is acting no differently then any of the past presidents. It is called the trappings of power; and each succeeding President has increased the power of the office. Trump is actually failing at that job; or course following Obama, how could he ever hope to succeed?
Want a major overreach? Try Obama's EA on DACA, after saying repeatedly that the Constitution didn't give him the power. It has put in place a system the Supreme Court ruled cannot be removed; even though it is illegal, and Trump has reversed Obama's EA. Nothing like rampant TDS to force the Executive branch to violate Constitutional law. The court isn't even bothering to deny the fact they are telling Trump to break the law. Of course the left forget the law of unintended consequences. Now anyone can argue an EO/EA is the same damn thing as a law. With the precedent set the Supreme Court will have to listen to the next case demanding an EO/EA be left in place.
Hey, how about Obama abusing the War on Terror Act and invading Syria? Syria never invited US forces in, they didn't ask for our help. They have told us to leave several times. Yet thanks to Obama, and the rampant TDS driven Chicken Hawk left we are still there. Still wasting US money fighting a war no one wants us to be involved in. Our moronic NATO allies (France and Britain), who had the most to gain, fled months ago; after promising to take over US responsibilities. Trump set the pullout date for US forces, and our "allies" beat us to the exit.
Or take Libya. Obama completely ignored the War Powers Act. To the point members of his own party tried to take him to court! Obama thought he was smarter than all of his Generals, who warned him that he would destabilize the country. Instead Obama listened to the worst judge of character ever, Hillary Clinton, who never met a military engagement she didn't like. Wonderful piece of shit Obama turned that country into. Imagine Trump ever attempting to do the same. The left would lose it and try to impeach him again!
But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!! We know, we know. Living rent free in TDS driven peoples' heads 24/7.
I have some new name suggestions for the team.
Washington Sellouts- Uniforms might be difficult, but the team will accurately depict the political atmosphere of the area. Maybe they can use all of the corporate and special interest group logos that give money to politicians. They would look more like NASCAR uniforms, but since the NFL is trying to follow NASCAR's horrendous business model- it would be appropriate.
Washington Traitors- Why not? All politicians are. That is not including the real traitors hiding in the shadows.
Washington Criminals- The team logo and colors can change by which party holds the White House; or by which ever party currently has someone under indictment at the Federal level.
Washington PC- The logo and team colors can be changed to match whatever is currently in with the PC crew. Advertisement space on uniforms can be sold to PC special interest groups that are very controversial and divisive. Again following the NASCAR business model to failure. I am sure BLM would love another platform; and Antifa would love to start a mainstream one.
Washington Rainbow Warriors- I was a Jeff Gordon fan. Maybe DuPont can buy the team? Of course that name might piss off two factions at once. Wonder which one would rank higher on the left's social outrage status?
I was always under the impression that a "mascot" or team name, was to convey strength, ability, and greatness. WTF is wrong with people. Redskins is in no fucking way was meant to be disrespectful. Wake the hell up people and see what is going on here.
I was under the same impression. Apparently for those easily offended don't quite understand that.
They see a name like Redskins or Indians and immediately get offended for those they THINK should be offended. And we have what we are seeing now.