• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tribal chief: No FedEx until Redskins change team name

Top Cat said:
Because I'm not NA.
Click to expand...
Your level of fail on this is staggeringly amazing and amusing.

At what percentage level should something be deemed offensive enough to prompt something like a team name change?

It's a generic question that crosses racial/ethnic boundaries and applies to pretty much any scenario, not only those involving Native Americans. Or, are you saying that some races/ethnicities are more sensitive than others, or maybe more deserving to be heard at a lower percentage than others?

Why are you so scared of having an opinion? You might be kidding yourself into thinking you look considerate and noble by saying only Native American opinions count, but all you're doing is looking spineless and disqualifying yourself from the debate entirely. You have effectively stripped yourself of all relevance. So be it.
 
Top Cat said:
My position on this is reasonably simple.
Click to expand...

Which has zero to do with the post I just asked. If you want to debate about the "boston blackskins" or the reason it's not being changed or whatever else I'll be happy to do it...but not as a means of simply deflecting from having to either back up the information you previously posted or acknowledging that it's a very questionable bit of information.
 
Top Cat said:
See my next post. And although it wasn't that, it certainly has to have an impact. You're a homer. Admit it.
Click to expand...

So a non-sensical defense, followed up by an attempt to change the topic, and ending with an ad hominen.

Gotcha.
 
Top Cat said:
Oh stop. That was in jest.
Click to expand...

I asked if it was in jest first and chalked it up as likely being just that. When you continued to rely on that as seemingly your only real answer to the questions or concerns I raiesd in my post I had little option but to believe it was NOT meant in jest.

I'm absolutely a fan of the team. It absolutely has an impact on the fervency of me arguing against what I view as poor arguments and stances in favor of changing the name.

Me being a fan of the team has nothing to do with questioning the scientific validity of the poll that was conducted given the amazing lack of information regarding it that's open to the public and the fact that the information that IS available largely calls into question it's validity as a scientifically conducted poll.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which has zero to do with the post I just asked. If you want to debate about the "boston blackskins" or the reason it's not being changed or whatever else I'll be happy to do it...but not as a means of simply deflecting from having to either back up the information you previously posted or acknowledging that it's a very questionable bit of information.
Click to expand...

Go back and read my post. I merely posted a study. If you have credible questions about it, fire away.
 
Zyphlin said:
I asked if it was in jest first and chalked it up as likely being just that. When you continued to rely on that as seemingly your only real answer to the questions or concerns I raiesd in my post I had little option but to believe it was NOT meant in jest.
Click to expand...

Fine. Then I apologize.
 
Cephus said:
Now I'm going to have to start using FedEx more often! Screw Standing Bear. Get your ass off the idiotic reservation and join the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Why? Seriously, why support something that is offensive to some? Historically there is no debate that the term was offensive, and it carries a clear history. Why not just be a decent human being and stop being stubborn?
 
Top Cat said:
My position on this is reasonably simple. We both know that if the name "Boston Blackskins" or some such derivation was around, it would be changed. Just as if the Washington Whiteskins would be changed.

The only reason the name isn't getting changed is money. I suspect we can agree to that.
Click to expand...

I'm curious - what is the history of the "Blackskins" and "Whiteskins" in American sports? I'm a pretty big fan of sports, and I'm getting kinda old, but I don't remember the illustrious history of these franchises. Can you fill me in.
 
ecofarm said:
Any system can be environmentally sound, what was not sustainable was the population of Bison. The natural system was greatly disturbed as evidenced by the population explosion resulting from the death of many NAs.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, there are definitely practices and systems which can not be environmentally sound but that's besides the point. We're talking about a specific situation here.

Mainly, I think it's odd to criticize a system because it stopped working after something drastically altered the system (by killing most NA's). Any system stops working if you destroy the components of the system.

Pretending NAs were any more environmentally aware than the next populace is nonsense. They exploited their environment to the extent possible, just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about that but I will say that that, being a non-scientific people, they did not have the knowledge or awareness of how natural systems work in detail and their practices, in some cases, did result in environmental degradation sometimes to the point of environmental collapse. And of course they did "exploit" their environment. Everyone does or they don't eat.

However, they did recognize the need for sustaining the environment, even if they didn't have the tools to ensure that goal was met.
 
Top Cat said:
Go back and read my post. I merely posted a study. If you have credible questions about it, fire away.
Click to expand...

I read your post. You didn't post a study. You posted a click-baiting news aggregator that had a story about a press release about a poll that's never been released publicly online.

I fired off my credible questions already.

What was the methodology used in this poll?

What was the margin of error in this poll?

Did the method of gathering respondents adhere to the standards of scientific polling?

Is the presentation that this is representative of "native americans" as a whole, as opposed to a very specific subset of native americans, accurate based on the methodology?
 
sangha said:
That doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, there are definitely practices and systems which can not be environmentally sound but that's besides the point.
Click to expand...

Even flat-out over-exploitation can work with a small enough population capable of moving throughout a region.

We're talking about a specific situation here.
Click to expand...

One which I've formally studied.

Mainly, I think it's odd to criticize a system because it stopped working after something drastically altered the system (by killing most NA's). Any system stops working if you destroy the components of the system.
Click to expand...

A system should be resilient and adaptive. This is achieved through diversity. The removal of a single species does not collapse a robust system.

I didn't say anything about that but I will say that that, being a non-scientific people, they did not have the knowledge or awareness of how natural systems work in detail and their practices, in some cases, did result in environmental degradation sometimes to the point of environmental collapse. And of course they did "exploit" their environment. Everyone does or they don't eat.
Click to expand...

NAs were just as destructive to the environment as any other people in similar geographic circumstances during that era. Claiming they had a special bond with the Earth and took care of it better than others is Noble Savage.

However, they did recognize the need for sustaining the environment, even if they didn't have the tools to ensure that goal was met.
Click to expand...

No more so than any other group in similar circumstances.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why? Seriously, why support something that is offensive to some? Historically there is no debate that the term was offensive, and it carries a clear history. Why not just be a decent human being and stop being stubborn?
Click to expand...

Nobody has a right not to be offended. Free speech always overrides offense. They can just grow up.
 
The most reasonable answer to what percentage of native americans find the Washington Redskins need to change the name is probably the one used by the patent office, and even that has a LOT of issues.

The patent office pointed to the National Congress of American Indians coming out against the name. The NCAI represents roughly 1/3 of all recognized tribes in the United States. The patent office used this to suggest that roughly a third of native americans were against the names use by the Washington Redskins.

HOWEVER...

Even that has three main issues. First, not all native americans belong to a federally recognized tribe or any tribe at all. Second, while it represents 1/3rd of all recognized tribes that doesn't necessarily equate to representing 1/3rd of all the population because tribes can be disparate in size. Third, much like its unreasonable to suggest resolutions and laws by the United States Congress represent the view of every single citizen that they preside over, so too is it unreasonable to suggest the NCAI's view speaks for every single native american within a tribe that it represents.

On the flip side, undoubtably there are likely some native americans in tribes NOT represented by the NCAI that have an issue with the name.

So I would probably personally put the number somewhere between 9% and 33% feel that the name needs to be changed.
 
Cephus said:
Nobody has a right not to be offended. Free speech always overrides offense. They can just grow up.
Click to expand...

Offense has nothing to do with legislation. It would be stupid to presume offense as the basis of any legislation. Legislation is a matter of limiting harm to society.

Racial stereotyping (even "positive" stereotypes) harm society. It does not matter whom is offended, that's a fact. That fact, and not any BS offense crying, is the basis of changing the name.


To review:

1. Only stupid people believe offense is a basis for ethical action.
2. Racial stereotypes harm society by marginalizing those left out.
 
ecofarm said:
Offense has nothing to do with legislation. It would be stupid to presume offense as the basis of any legislation. Legislation is a matter of limiting harm to society.

Racial stereotyping (even "positive" stereotypes) harm society. It does not matter whom is offended, that's a fact. That fact, and not any BS offense crying, is the basis of changing the name.


To review:

1. Only stupid people believe offense is a basis for ethical action.
2. Racial stereotypes harm society by marginalizing those left out.
Click to expand...

There's no stereotyping involved. It doesn't insult Native Americans. These people are CHOOSING to take offense to something that describes their skin color, just like some blacks get offended when someone calls them black. Too bad. Come back when you have a legitimate gripe.
 
Cephus said:
There's no stereotyping involved. It doesn't insult Native Americans. These people are CHOOSING to take offense to something that describes their skin color, just like some blacks get offended when someone calls them black. Too bad. Come back when you have a legitimate gripe.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it insulted anyone and I couldn't give a **** if it did.

It does, however, stereotype a race.
 
Though, again...my last post touches on a problem with this. What exactly is being asked or looked at regarding native americans.

Do you find the word redskin in ALL instances?
Do you find it being used by the washington football team offensive
Do you the name being used by the football team needs to be changed?
Would you prefer it to be changed than not, but don't care strongly either way?
Is the name of a football team being the "redskins" of significant concern to you

These are all different questions with potentially different answers that all would paint an entirely different story.

My stance on this, having interacted with Native American organizations a number of times in the past, is that I simply wish that all this fervor, attention, public awareness, and time that has been spent on the name would be spent on the multitude of issues affecting indian country far more in magnitutde then the name of a football team.

And before anyone goes "you can be both, one doesn't preclude the other"...you're aboslutely right. But for the most part that's not what's happening. The greater awareness about the issues with the team name isn't generally causing some huge upswing in helping to fight poverty on reservations. The plethora of stories hitting news outlets aren't causing an increase in news stories about the troubling educational rates within the native american population.

Strangely enough, as much as I don't want to see the name change....if it honestly was seeming to raise significant awareness and care for the plight of native americans in this country in tangible ways at an equal rate and intesity as it is regarding the name "Redskin" then I'd be happy about this entire long ordeal. But that's not really happening...rather, it's just yet another on a long list of cause celeb things that breeds facebook activism and allows sports writers that didn't have the chops to be political writers to have a little wank in private as they pat themselves on their back thinking they did some kind of great thing for civil rights by protecting the poor poor native americans from possibly being offended.
 
ecofarm said:
Even flat-out over-exploitation can work with a small enough population capable of moving throughout a region.
Click to expand...

The system is defined (to some extent) by the size of its' components. If the component isn't large enough, then it can't extract/exploit everything the resource has to give. It can extract as much as it can (ie work at 100% efficiency) but that's not over-exploitation

A system should be resilient and adaptive. This is achieved through diversity. The removal of a single species does not collapse a robust system.
Click to expand...

The issue here isn't the resiliency of a system. It's about whether the existence of large #'s of buffalo was environmentally destructive. And there was more than the removal of a single species. Both the buffalo and the NA's were essentially eliminated. They were two of the most important species driving the system of mob grazing the plains.


NAs were just as destructive to the environment as any other people in similar geographic circumstances during that era. Claiming they had a special bond with the Earth and took care of it better than others is Noble Savage.
Click to expand...

I did not deny that they have, in some cases, degraded the environment nor did I claim any "special bond" so I don't know where you get the Noble Savage thing from.


No more so than any other group in similar circumstances.
Click to expand...

No, not every culture is equal on this matter.
 
Zyphlin said:
Though, again...my last post touches on a problem with this. What exactly is being asked or looked at regarding native americans.

Do you find the word redskin in ALL instances?
Do you find it being used by the washington football team offensive
Do you the name being used by the football team needs to be changed?
Would you prefer it to be changed than not, but don't care strongly either way?
Is the name of a football team being the "redskins" of significant concern to you

These are all different questions with potentially different answers that all would paint an entirely different story.

My stance on this, having interacted with Native American organizations a number of times in the past, is that I simply wish that all this fervor, attention, public awareness, and time that has been spent on the name would be spent on the multitude of issues affecting indian country far more in magnitutde then the name of a football team.

And before anyone goes "you can be both, one doesn't preclude the other"...you're aboslutely right. But for the most part that's not what's happening. The greater awareness about the issues with the team name isn't generally causing some huge upswing in helping to fight poverty on reservations. The plethora of stories hitting news outlets aren't causing an increase in news stories about the troubling educational rates within the native american population.

Strangely enough, as much as I don't want to see the name change....if it honestly was seeming to raise significant awareness and care for the plight of native americans in this country in tangible ways at an equal rate and intesity as it is regarding the name "Redskin" then I'd be happy about this entire long ordeal. But that's not really happening...rather, it's just yet another on a long list of cause celeb things that breeds facebook activism and allows sports writers that didn't have the chops to be political writers to have a little wank in private as they pat themselves on their back thinking they did some kind of great thing for civil rights by protecting the poor poor native americans from possibly being offended.
Click to expand...

All those questions are legitimate, but what it really boils down to is a business decision. If it costs them more to keep the name than to change it, they will change it. The people who are protesting the name are trying to sway public opinion towards the former.

And while I do think there are issues of more importance, there are people who think the denigration of their culture is a very important issue and that the name denigrates their culture. People decide for themselves what's important to them. Not much can be done about that
 
Cephus said:
Nobody has a right not to be offended. Free speech always overrides offense. They can just grow up.
Click to expand...

A right? No. But a right to protest they do have. And being someone who offends knowing just makes you a jerk. It's not illegal to be one. And it has nothing to do with rights. But it marks you all the same. And it always has.
 
sangha said:
The system is defined (to some extent) by the size of its' components. If the component isn't large enough, then it can't extract/exploit everything the resource has to give. It can extract as much as it can (ie work at 100% efficiency) but that's not over-exploitation
Click to expand...

Gibberish.

The issue here isn't the resiliency of a system.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and it illustrates mismanagement.

I did not deny that they have, in some cases, degraded the environment nor did I claim any "special bond" so I don't know where you get the Noble Savage thing from.
Click to expand...

It comes from the person I quoted in the conversation you interrupted.

No, not every culture is equal on this matter.
Click to expand...

Every culture in the same circumstances did the same thing. People will exploit an environment to the best of their ability and knowledge. NAs were not special in this regard.
 
sangha said:
If it costs them more to keep the name than to change it, they will change it.
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree, but I do think there's a wild card here...

Dan Snyder, while a businessman, is also a fan.

He's a person who grew up as a fan of this team from a very early age. He's also a very stubborn man from all accounts that I've heard and read about the man.

If somehow the Redskins name actually causes one of the most profitable sports franchises in the United States to STOP being profitable, then I agree...he'd likely take the initative to change it himself. But if it simply causes it to be LESS profitable, but still profitable, I can't see that causing Dan Snyder to change. The stubborn nature, mixed with his history as a FAN, I believe would cuase him to accept making less money but keeping the name.

Also, even if the team does make a lower profit then it currently is, changing the name doesn't inherently mean it'd fix it. A recent study by a university (I wish I could link to it, but I forgot the specifics and I originally heard about it on a radio show) tried to quantify what the most important motivating factors were for various sports franchises in the United States. Things like tradition, the product on the field, game day experiences, star players, etc.

Redskin fans were at the very top, along side Packers and Steeler fans, when it came to tradition being the primary motivating factor. And this shouldn't be surprising, as it's a fanbase still largely living on the joy of 20+ years ago.

Changing the name, unless it's accompanied with a SIGNIFICANT increase in product on the field over the next decade, could actually potentially cause a significant hit in terms of the profit of the team as the fanbase begins to feel a disconnect. It hampers the teams ability to prop up the past as a means of keeping interest in the present...something routinely done by the Redskins over the past 20 years.

IF a financial issue is going to cause a name change, it won't be a financial hit impacting the Redskins but rather the NFL. And I don't know if we're going to get to a place anytime soon where enough major sponsors will actually put pressure on the NFL, to a point where the NFL legitimately thinks it may be losing money from it, to cause a change.

If the name is going to change I largely feel it'll come about due to pressure from the Government in some substantial factor or pressure from the league due to financial issues....and the latter I don't see as being likely soon. I just don't see many avenues in which the Washington Redskins will suffer SIGNIFICANT financial hardships over the name.

It gets a lot of it's money via revenue sharing from the TV contracts. As it relates to individual sponsors, it's a big enough entity that I think even if it loses something like Fedex (and I don't think it will) I think it could recover well enough. It's money from ticket sales or merchandise is not likely to be largely impacted by the name thing, as fans of the team aren't largely stopping being fans because of the name. The product on the field is far more impactful in terms of tickets and merchandise then the fact they're not changing the name.
 
Zyphlin said:
He's a person who grew up as a fan of this team from a very early age. He's also a very stubborn man from all accounts that I've heard and read about the man.
Click to expand...
I have heard and read the same.

I believe the name will eventually change, and it will be forced, but not until the team sells. Since the league gets to approve all team sales, a condition of approval will be placed that the new owner will change the name. May be 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, but it will happen.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Canada's treatment of First Nations is pretty ugly, especially the first three quarters of the 20th century. There is huge sensitivity to that here. Also, Indians make up about 30% of this areas population, they resent being called "east Indian" as my friend Bondhar says "I know of no one born in east India."

You simply don't use terms like that here.
Click to expand...


Difference is that in Canada Native Canadians actually integrate in society, you see them everywhere. In the US you can go years without actually seeing one unless you go to a casino or reservation to buy cigarettes. :)

Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom