Redskins shareholders attempting to force name change

[EaglesPeteC]

5 minutes ago, scar988 said:

I'm here for Dan Snyder making the Washington Latkes then. (I'm Jewish and Dan Snyder is also Jewish, and I think it'd be hilarious to see a team with a potato pancake as a mascot).

Hilarious and delicious 

[titanrick]

25 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

The line is simple. You don’t get to make a mascot out of a culture that isn’t yours. 

Who does "yours" apply to?  The owner?  The original owner?  The fanbase?  The majority of the fanbase?  

Doesn't this also apply to the Cowboys? Vikings? Chiefs? Raiders? 49'ers? Buccaneers?  That's just the NFL - how many names are "a culture that isn't yours" in other sports?

I'm not against a name change.  But people who think it's just simple and the Skins are the only team affected here are being unrealistic.

Edited July 2, 2020 by titanrick

[August4th]

Do people consider the Fighting Irish to be offensive? just tried to imagine that name and logo being applied to other groups and yikes

[Xenos]

1 hour ago, sp6488 said:

From 2016:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

From 2019:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-survey-explores-how-native-americans-feel-about-the-name-washington-redskins-no-its-not-that-survey-this-one-is-new/2019/08/09/e38553bc-b581-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html

 

So about that:

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/

Quote

The study’s findings, published in the journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science, show that the degree to which those surveyed identified as Native American influenced how offensive they found Native mascots.

Of those polled for the study, 57% who strongly identify with being Native American and 67% of those who frequently engage in tribal cultural practices were found to be deeply insulted by caricatures of Native American culture.

Overall, the results suggest the controversy over the use of Native representations, such as chief headdresses, war cries and the tomahawk chop, is far from over.

“We keep seeing clear examples of Native people speaking up and protesting these problematic team names and mascots. Yet, public opinion polls, with little methodological transparency, say that Native people are not offended. Things just don’t add up,” said study co-lead author Arianne Eason, a UC Berkeley assistant professor of psychology.

Eason and University of Michigan psychologist Stephanie Fryberg launched the study last fall in response to what they deemed as “yet another questionable opinion survey” about the Redskins’ name.

For example, a 2019 web-based survey of 500 self-identified Native Americans that was reported in The Washington Post found that 68% of those polled were not offended by the Washington Redskins’ name.  Among other things, it asked respondents to identify whether the Redskins’ name made them feel proud, disappointed, empowered, embarrassed, appreciative or hopeless.

Moreover, a 2016 Washington Post survey found that nine in 10 Native Americans polled claimed not to be bothered by the moniker. It was a telephone survey of 504 self-identified Native Americans, and the results are said to have influenced the decision of team owner Daniel Snyder to retain the Redskins’ name.

“The data from previous opinion polls is often used to silence Native people,” said Fryberg, a member of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, in Washington state. “But our study, which captures a broad diversity of Native peoples and experiences, shows high rates of opposition. As researchers and consumers of information, we need to be very careful about whose voices we claim to be representing.”

 

[Forge]

13 minutes ago, titanrick said:

But people who think it's just simple and the Skins are the only team affected here are being unrealistic

Certainly possible...but not a guarantee.

I'm not saying that you were doing this, so don't misconstrue my next comments as aimed at; you are merely opening conversation to the possibility and I understand that, but it does bring up a common argument that I see (specifically with regards to this scenario) which is inherently flawed, and that's the Domino theory. People use that tactic all the time, and it's just a bad argument. Then they supplement it with "Whataboutism" which is also an inherently terrible debate tactic. 

[Matts4313]

3 hours ago, y*so*blu said:

I seriously doubt a name change would accomplish anything beyond a few months of good publicity for the shareholders and the team, which is bound to evaporate as soon as they start playing games and limp on to another losing season.

The shareholders should think of more productive things to do with their time, like ousting one of the most hated team owners in the NFL.

It would probably also be an enormous boon on merchandise sales and other similar factors.

[JBURGE]

If our current situation doesn't prompt the change, then I don't know what will. I am honestly so disappointed in the NFL that they haven't forced a change earlier, but I should know what to expect. 

[BleedTheClock]

[removed]

[offbyone]

 

1 hour ago, EaglesPeteC said:

The line is simple. You don’t get to make a mascot out of a culture that isn’t yours. 

Culture is not owned, nor is it static.  It is always evolving.  Much like the meaning of words evolve. 

[pf9]

The name should be Washington Presidents. It honors the city's status as the capital of the US.

As part of the name change, the team colors are changed to red, white, and navy blue - the same colors as the American flag and the other three major teams in Washington.

[ET80]

2 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

[removed]

We're done here.

@BleedTheClock - you should know better, so this will earn you a WARNING.