Daniel Snyder: Redskins will 'never' change team name

[Eric15]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...ys-washington-redskins-never-change-team-name

I understand that tradition is a major part of football fanhood, but I just don't think that there's any getting around the fact that the term Redskin is fundamentally racist - in our nation's capital nonetheless.

 

[Townie72]

The definition of words change.

"Gay" used to mean happy. It's meaning has changed over time.

Few people, if anyone, associate the term "Redskins" with anything but the Washington DC football team.

Poll after poll have shown that the native American population is indifferent. Of course, people who claim to be their representatives are outraged. Not surprisingly. If they couldn't stir up some outrage they wouldn't have jobs and couldn't be interviewed on TV as to how outraged they are.

This is a silly issue raised by silly people.

People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life.

A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people.

Good for Dan Snyder and I'm not a fan of his. I hope the heads of the silly people who raise this stupid issue explode in indignation.

 

[Eric15]

The definition of words change.

"Gay" used to mean happy. It's meaning has changed over time.

Few people, if anyone, associate the term "Redskins" with anything but the Washington DC football team.

Poll after poll have shown that the native American population is indifferent. Of course, people who claim to be their representatives are outraged. Not surprisingly. If they couldn't stir up some outrage they wouldn't have jobs and couldn't be interviewed on TV as to how outraged they are.

This is a silly issue raised by silly people.

People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life.

A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people.

Good for Dan Snyder and I'm not a fan of his. I hope the heads of the silly people who raise this stupid issue explode in indignation.

Agree to disagree on most of what you just said.

And I'm certainly not obsessing over it - I'm just commenting on a story that was on the front page of ESPN.com.

 

[longtimefan]

The definition of words change.

"Gay" used to mean happy. It's meaning has changed over time.

Few people, if anyone, associate the term "Redskins" with anything but the Washington DC football team.

Poll after poll have shown that the native American population is indifferent. Of course, people who claim to be their representatives are outraged. Not surprisingly. If they couldn't stir up some outrage they wouldn't have jobs and couldn't be interviewed on TV as to how outraged they are.

This is a silly issue raised by silly people.

People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life.

A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people.

Good for Dan Snyder and I'm not a fan of his. I hope the heads of the silly people who raise this stupid issue explode in indignation.

Reasonable response--if you can back up your statement that "Poll after poll have shown that the native American population is indifferent."

 

[Townie72]

Reasonable response--if you can back up your statement that "Poll after poll have shown that the native American population is indifferent."

Back it up? No problem. Here's a excerpt from an Annenberg poll that says just about what every other poll of actual Native Americans every time there has been one of these name change efforts at colleges or for pro sports franchises.

"
Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable
While 9 Percent Call It Offensive, Annenberg Data Show

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins”
does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey
shows.

Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name
“offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was
plus or minus two percentage points.

Indian leaders have called upon the team to change the name, but the Redskins’ owner,
Daniel Snyder, has insisted it will keep the name it has had ever since 1933, when it played in
Boston. The team moved to Washington in 1937.

There was little variation among subgroups of Native Americans. Eight percent of men and 9
percent of women said the name was offensive, while 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother
them. Ten percent of Indians under 45 found the name offensive, compared to 8 percent of those
45 and older"

How's that?

The name Redskins does offend 100% of hyper-sensitive Liberals who spend time and effort trying to help protected classes who are too dumb to know they ought to be hurt and offended. After all if it offends their sensibilities, it MUST offend others. Or so they feel.

 

[Townie72]

Here's another poll of Native Americans cited in a 2005 Washington Post story. : A survey conducted in 2002 by Sports Illustrated found that 81 percent of Native Americans who live outside traditional Indian reservations and 53 percent of Indians on reservations did not find the images discriminatory.

Maybe someone ought to do a poll of the Onondagas to find out just how much better their lives are now that the Saltine Warrior has been replaced by a huge cloth ball.

 

[longtimefan]

Back it up? No problem. Here's a excerpt from an Annenberg poll that says just about what every other poll of actual Native Americans every time there has been one of these name change efforts at colleges or for pro sports franchises.

"
Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable
While 9 Percent Call It Offensive, Annenberg Data Show

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins”
does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey
shows.

Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name
“offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was
plus or minus two percentage points.

Indian leaders have called upon the team to change the name, but the Redskins’ owner,
Daniel Snyder, has insisted it will keep the name it has had ever since 1933, when it played in
Boston. The team moved to Washington in 1937.

There was little variation among subgroups of Native Americans. Eight percent of men and 9
percent of women said the name was offensive, while 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother
them. Ten percent of Indians under 45 found the name offensive, compared to 8 percent of those
45 and older"

How's that?

The name Redskins does offend 100% of hyper-sensitive Liberals who spend time and effort trying to help protected classes who are too dumb to know they ought to be hurt and offended. After all if it offends their sensibilities, it MUST offend others. Or so they feel.

What was the date on the Annenberg survey? You mentioned 2005 in another post. Attitudes on many things have changed drastically in the past decade--e.g., same-sex marriage.

Which is not to say that the 9% is 50% now, but I would guess the trend is in that direction.

And, should the 9% not have the right to be offended and to press for change?

 

[Toga]

Interesting polls (really). Wonder what the poll numbers would be like on these.

 

[qdawgg]

The name Redskins does offend 100% of hyper-sensitive Liberals who spend time and effort trying to help protected classes who are too dumb to know they ought to be hurt and offended.

Silly response. Conservatives seem to spend just as much time and effort being hurt and offended when people try to steal the holidays from them. Every year I have to hear about the "attack on Christmas" over and over again. A situation completely invented by tea bagged conservative groups. Essentially and please allow me to paraphrase, "A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people."

To call out one group as if that side of the fence is more likely to act hyper sensitive compared to the other is silly. Both sides are idiots, they just say and do idiotic things from different perspectives. I was agreeing with some of what you were saying and then you threw a highly uneducated thought in there and made it difficult to place any value in what you already had said. Kind of a shame really.

 

[MassOrange]

People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life.

A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people.

So people with a different opinion than yours are automatically 'obsessed' and 'non-consequential'. Got it.

It's a terrible name.

 

[SU2NASA]

We need to bring this back.

 

[bnoro]

One of my classes at SU had Oren Lyons come as a guest speaker along with a few others from the five nations, and those that came said they were offended by the portrayal of native americans as mascots for teams. It's not just liberals.

Personally I feel like FSU did it the best.

 

[Eric15]

Here's another poll of Native Americans cited in a 2005 Washington Post story. : A survey conducted in 2002 by Sports Illustrated found that 81 percent of Native Americans who live outside traditional Indian reservations and 53 percent of Indians on reservations did not find the images discriminatory.

Maybe someone ought to do a poll of the Onondagas to find out just how much better their lives are now that the Saltine Warrior has been replaced by a huge cloth ball.

In other words, 47% of Indians on reservations do find the images discriminatory. That is a large plurality of people.

And Otto the Orange is one of, if not the most recognizable mascot in college sports. He's on ESPN all the time promoting our brand.

 

[orangefog]

Does anyone know why so many college and professional athletic teams adopted native american names or themes as their name?

 

[riskylogic]

In other words, 47% of Indians on reservations do find the images discriminatory. That is a large plurality of people.

And Otto the Orange is one of, if not the most recognizable mascot in college sports. He's on ESPN all the time promoting our brand.

The Redskins could do the same thing by making their mascot a potato.

 

[Bayside44]

One of my classes at SU had Oren Lyons come as a guest speaker along with a few others from the five nations, and those that came said they were offended by the portrayal of native americans as mascots for teams. It's not just liberals.

Personally I feel like FSU did it the best.

Oren Lyons spoke at my graduation 20 years ago yesterday (our orginal speaker was Arthur Ashe but he died - welcome to 1993).

He was a bitter, cranky dude who didn't exactly send the graduating class out like other speakers SU had.

 

[Townie72]

In other words, 47% of Indians on reservations do find the images discriminatory. That is a large plurality of people.

And Otto the Orange is one of, if not the most recognizable mascot in college sports. He's on ESPN all the time promoting our brand.

What percentage of Native Americans live on reservations? If you knew that, using these numbers you would know what the opinion of the entire group was.

I've been on some Reservations in Arizona and in South Dakota. My impression was that these are not hot beds of Liberal thinking.

 

[Shermthegeneral]

Does anyone know why so many college and professional athletic teams adopted native american names or themes as their name?

I would assume that a lot of colleges adopted Indian mascots based on their location, ie saltine warriors, FSU Seminoles.

 

[orangefog]

I would assume that a lot of colleges adopted Indian mascots based on their location, ie saltine warriors, FSU Seminoles.

That was my assumption as well. But I was wondering if they also adopted native american mascots because, at the time, they were considered savage and great warriors, perhaps even merciless, and those were favorable traits on the feild of play? I was not alive at that time, and I can only speculate as to the mindset of people of the time with regard to native americans, but from what I gather, there was less respect for the native american culture at the time most of these teams adopted their mascots.

 

[Townie72]

What was the date on the Annenberg survey? You mentioned 2005 in another post. Attitudes on many things have changed drastically in the past decade--e.g., same-sex marriage.

Which is not to say that the 9% is 50% now, but I would guess the trend is in that direction.

And, should the 9% not have the right to be offended and to press for change?

But its NOT the Native Americans who are pressing for change (except for a few self-appointed "leaders" trotted out by Media and the lefties)

You have no bloody idea which way the trend is.

This isn't about Native American opinion. This is about the self-worth of Liberals.

Robert Samuelson in today's Washington Post nails the sentiment exactly (Although he is talking about Obamacare")

"Obamacare’s advocates ignored these ambiguities. They were too busy flaunting their moral superiority. Universal health insurance is a legitimate goal, but 2009 — in the midst of a major economic crisis — was the wrong time to pursue it. Predictably, it polarized public opinion and subverted confidence for what seem to have been, based on the available evidence, modest likely public health improvements. The crusade for universal coverage has been as much about advocates’ sense of self-worth as about benefits for the uninsured."

I'll paraphrase it ... The pressure to change this name comes from a small group --- containing almost no Native Americans --- who want to flaunt their moral superiority and this is more about their self-worth than it is the Native Americans, who really don't care.

 

[Shermthegeneral]

People have way to much free time on their hands! Imagine if we could channel that energy into something productive!

 

[Townie72]

Silly response. Conservatives seem to spend just as much time and effort being hurt and offended when people try to steal the holidays from them. Every year I have to hear about the "attack on Christmas" over and over again. A situation completely invented by tea bagged conservative groups. Essentially and please allow me to paraphrase, "A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people."

To call out one group as if that side of the fence is more likely to act hyper sensitive compared to the other is silly. Both sides are idiots, they just say and do idiotic things from different perspectives. I was agreeing with some of what you were saying and then you threw a highly uneducated thought in there and made it difficult to place any value in what you already had said. Kind of a shame really.

I see the problem.

I meant to say "Liberals who spend time and effort trying to help protected classes who THEY BELIEVE are too dumb to know they ought to be hurt and offended.

 

[SUtyger]

Does anyone know why so many college and professional athletic teams adopted native american names or themes as their name?

Most names were selected for intimidation. Most of them were animals, but some were named after specific groups that people found to be intimidating, like the native americans.

 

[xc84]

But its NOT the Native Americans who are pressing for change (except for a few self-appointed "leaders" trotted out by Media and the lefties)

There are plenty of "Native Americans" who have spoken out against the use of the term "Redskin" to describe them. I think it is maybe you who has a belief that somehow they are too dumb to voice their own opinions and therefore must be puppets of the liberals. Somehow, these Native Americans have no right to their opinion and must therefore have been brainwashed. Unless they go along with you, their opinion is invalid.

 

[longtimefan]

But its NOT the Native Americans who are pressing for change (except for a few self-appointed "leaders" trotted out by Media and the lefties)

You have no bloody idea which way the trend is.

This isn't about Native American opinion. This is about the self-worth of Liberals.

Robert Samuelson in today's Washington Post nails the sentiment exactly (Although he is talking about Obamacare")

"Obamacare’s advocates ignored these ambiguities. They were too busy flaunting their moral superiority. Universal health insurance is a legitimate goal, but 2009 — in the midst of a major economic crisis — was the wrong time to pursue it. Predictably, it polarized public opinion and subverted confidence for what seem to have been, based on the available evidence, modest likely public health improvements. The crusade for universal coverage has been as much about advocates’ sense of self-worth as about benefits for the uninsured."

I'll paraphrase it ... The pressure to change this name comes from a small group --- containing almost no Native Americans --- who want to flaunt their moral superiority and this is more about their self-worth than it is the Native Americans, who really don't care.

I'll ask again--does the 9% (your statistic) not have the right to speak out against what they find offensive?