Rocky Landing

Conspiracy!!!

Judging from past Washington Skins' press releases on the subject of their name, I wouldn't assume they are definitive.

Care to make a wager on that?

Are you really trying to bait me into drawing a false comparison to the N-word by drawing your own false comparison to the N-word? I expect more from you.

Who says I'm protesting anything? We're debating here. And, if there was a team called the Hoboken Ni**ers, with a long history of "honoring African Americans," we'd probably be in agreement that it should be changed.

This has been an argument against a name change: are there enough Native Americans offended to warrant a name change, and how many is enough? Well, the National Congress of American Indians is, by far, the largest, oldest, and most recognized Native American organization there is. Their membership includes several hundred tribes. If they can't represent Native American issues, then who, on God's green earth, can? Here's a link to their website, for anyone who cares: http://www.ncai.org

I would have agreed with you, until I saw that this ad was appearing on prime time during an NBA final. I'm not sure if they aired the entire two minute spot (that's a long commercial!) or if was paired down to a minute, or 30 seconds, but regardless, the NCAI spent a significant amount of money. I doubt they're going to back off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-red-cloud-indian-school-on-the-washington-redskins-name/2013/10/11/e24044ba-32bc-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

But, $10.50 for onion rings???

Wow. This thread immediately evolved into an SJ dog pile.

That bill contained a total of 26 Remy Martins (including 14 doubles), 4 Crown Royals, 17 kamikazes, 4 rum runners, 5 old fashioned, 21 assorted bottles of cabernet, and ONE ICED TEA.

He has always struck me as a player whose performance would swing wildly according to his motivation. Maybe that's a polite way of saying that he isn't always professional? But, certainly, during his last season here, he wasn't playing with 100% effort. Beast Mode appeared with a winning season. For a guy like that, retiring after after a Super Bowl win might make sense. For him, the rest of his career would feel "down hill."

Fair enough, and a good starting point. I believe that if the Native American community were to effectively argue that the term, while having a benign origin, is nonetheless rooted in racism, negative stereotyping, and even genocide, that a name change would rise above the level of mere political correctness. I do believe that is the underlying point behind the NCAI ad.

If you're going to cut-and-paste from another website, you should at least use quotations. Be that as it may, there is a distinct level of intellectual dishonesty in your sources. I won't get onto your first post, because all of the points, including the spurious stats, have been covered in the previous pages. But this particular cut-and-paste (taken directly from a Dan Snyder press release) is an especially interesting one. For example, it neglects to mention that the late coach George Allen created the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. It also neglects to mention that the primary beneficiary of the fund, the Red Cloud Indian School, has denounced the name "Redskins," and (according to a letter they wrote to the Washington Post), has accused Snyder of misrepresenting their role in developing the logo. I love debate. I truly do. And, I despise plagiarism. Mindlessly cutting and pasting off a biased website and passing it off as your own debate makes my blood boil.

Maybe you should read through the last nine pages of this debate...

I asked this question of another poster (who was unwilling to answer), who seemed to hold a similar view in this debate: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not of political correctness?

I keep changing my mind, too. Still surprised that Houston is winning the worst poll.

What I have maintained, is that the origin of the word was not a slur. The history of the word, in context, has been a slur for the last 200 years. If the Redskins Organization wants to say that it is a term of honor, they do so in contrast to history, as well as the several hundred Native American tribes represented by the National Congress of American Indians. That's the way I see it. I've always felt that history should be embraced, and acknowledged. It's just my perspective. This country has been responsible for some of the greatest accomplishments in the world. We have also been responsible for some travesties. I believe that to deny the latter does a disservice to the former.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/1933-news-article-refutes-cherished-tale-that-redskins-were-named-to-honor-indian-coach/2014/05/28/19ad32e8-e698-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html A quote from George Preston Marshall, himself, in an interview from July 6th, 1933: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.” The original term was one of respect over 200 years ago. It has been a derogatory term for 200 years since. In 1933, it referred to the negative stereotype of the Native American as an uncivilized, violent savage. I don't suspect that Snyder, himself, is actively disrespecting Native Americans. I suspect he does't really care. His words, and actions, IMO, would support that theory. But, the one thing that supporters of the name seem to have in common, is that they don't want to acknowledge the actual history of the word, or the history of genocide endured by Native Americans. As I have said before, it depends on which side of history you choose to stand. You can either acknowledge history, or ignore it.

I brought up the Hollywood stereotype because that was the connotation the name had when the team was named, in 1933. I think it's an important historical context to this discussion, because so many have pointed to the team name's origin as if it had been done out of respect. In 1933, Native Americans had no national voice, and were viewed largely as that negative stereotype, as evidenced by the overwhelming depiction in media from that time as uncivilized, savage, and violent. The only way Snyder could educate people to the favorability of the name would be for him to rewrite history (which, sadly, some people seem more than willing to do). I think this does a disservice to all parties involved.

...not to waste your time, but:Three years? You mean, if EJ lays an egg this year, he's still going to be here in 2015?

Excellent point (I hope). What I am wondering is if EJ has shown improvement in these OTAs. I read what Marrone says, and it all sounds very political-- exactly what you would expect him to say. Then, there are all the tweets... which just have me nibbling on the line. The one constant is the oft-repeated refrain, "it's just OTAs." But, as I mentioned in another post, we have no problem crowing when someone has a stand-out performance during the same OTAs. Is there any consensus on how EJ is progressing?

I think this would be quite a stretch for Snyder. The name, most likely, was originally a term of respect, but became derogatory in the early 1800s. It has since been associated with scalping, and genocide. In 1933, when the name was changed, the connotation for mainstream America was that of the "Hollywood" indian, typically portrayed as violent, uncivilized, and most often "bad guys." This was well before Native Americans had any sort of unified voice. And, the story that G.P Marshal changed the name to "honor" their coach, has been debunked. So, for Snyder to try to "educate" Native Americans on their own heritage, and the history of what is, without a doubt, a racial slur would surely backfire. I think that the question has really been more about whether the supporters of the name are either aware of its history, or willing to acknowledge it.

I don't believe that anybody has argued its legality-- only its decency.

Hmm. I suppose the argument could be made. But, I would disagree. To me, a single shot of their helmut on the playing field illustrates the issue without any other context. It doesn't say anything about intent, history, attitude, or anything else. It doesn't mention, or allude to any individual, or individual action. How else can a commercial protest Washington's use of the name without somehow alluding to the team? And, how could that element be inserted into the commercial in any less of a confrontational way?