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

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.

I said this when they aired it around the SB. If you throw in clips of Native American High Schools that still use the Redskins name and logo(with the voiceover saying football player one time and Redskins the next), clips of Redskins game footage (with voice over saying athlete) and fans singing Hail to the Redskins, and a couple simple other edits, the ad would easily be more honest and also support the name, as most Native Americans currently do. Like most propaganda/commercials, it's bias is pretty obvious, and built on half truths and relies on people not using a shred of critical thinking - so it probably will work.

I do not believe that most Native Americans support the name. It certainly offends enough Native Americans to incentivize tribal and other organizations to campaign against it.

By the way, what percentage of any racial group needs to be offended by any racially descriptive word for that word to be eliminated from common usage? Well under 50% as a group, I would think. Only one person would need to be offended for me to stop using the word if I'm talking to a Native American who is insulted by my use of it. Why not err on the side of being respectful?

If you read one column about the Redskins name issue, make it this one

True Lies and the Washington Redskins (http://httr24-7.com/blog/true-lies-and-the-washington-redskins/)

Mic drop. Well written and informative.

If you read one column about the Redskins name issue, make it this one

True Lies and the Washington Redskins (http://httr24-7.com/blog/true-lies-and-the-washington-redskins/)

That is a good article in some ways, especially if one substitutes the phrase "empirical evidence" for "imperial evidence."

But it problematically cites many polls in favor of the name. There are many positive polls but I haven't seen one that has a scent of scientific rigor. Without polls done with sound methods, those polls will not convince opponents.

I am with KI Skins Fan on this: in the long run it doesn't matter what the true history of the word is or anything else like that. In the long run, either the trademark will be vacated or sponsors (rightly or wrongly) will withdraw money from the NFL. When either of these things happens, the name will change. The article hints at this outcome, too.

I do not believe that most Native Americans support the name. It certainly offends enough Native Americans to incentivize tribal and other organizations to campaign against it.

By the way, what percentage of any racial group needs to be offended by any racially descriptive word for that word to be eliminated from common usage? Well under 50% as a group, I would think. Only one person would need to be offended for me to stop using the word if I'm talking to a Native American who is insulted by my use of it. Why not err on the side of being respectful?

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.

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.

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!

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 (http://tracking.si.com/2014/06/10/redskins-hire-lobbying-firm-senators-call-nickname-change/)

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.

If you read one column about the Redskins name issue, make it this one

True Lies and the Washington Redskins (http://httr24-7.com/blog/true-lies-and-the-washington-redskins/)

Finally, someone brings facts to the table. Is there something we can do besides the usual "post to FB/etc." to bring this to the attention of the national media?

It is not a "nick name" , it is the actual name of the Washington Redskins .