This is OUT-FUCKING -STANDING!!!!

[Mississippi-Fan]

Simple, direct, and powerful. Didn't that pos Goodell just come out and say 9 out of 10 Native American tribes found no offense in the name?

loved it.

[FuriousXGeorge]

Simple, direct, and powerful. Didn't that pos Goodell just come out and say 9 out of 10 Native American tribes found no offense in the name?

No, he said a poll said 90% of native americans had no problem with it. Of course, the poll had no real controls to see who is who. You go out into the midwest and all kinds of people claim they have a great grandmother who is a "cherokee princess". These polls rely on that self-id to count who is native.

Other polls, run by actual real life natives...different results. When the Indian Country Today did a poll of native folks, 81% found the sports team imagery offensive. That's a big chasm in results. We can either assume native leaders and rights groups are total gaslighters, or that at the least the truth is in the middle here and many natives find it offensive. Change the dang name.

[Eagle In Ohio]

HELL FUCKING YES !!!!!!

Fuck that POS franchise and their POS fans !! (Except for Phoward, of course)

[Dolomite]

Seeing it for the first time good stuff.

[harls]

No, he said a poll said 90% of native americans had no problem with it. Of course, the poll had no real controls to see who is who. You go out into the midwest and all kinds of people claim they have a great grandmother who is a "cherokee princess". These polls rely on that self-id to count who is native.

If you go by the Great-Grandmother was native american I am native american (Granted I just found this out a couple months ago)... If you ask me it is Fucking racist as shit. Always thought so .

[Phoward12]

Fuck that POS franchise and their POS fans !! (Except for Phoward, of course)

Well thanks, I appreciate the second part of it.

I'll say what I've always said about the name, and I've said this on the Skins board too so my opinion should not be a surprise to anyone. I don't give a crap about the name. Did any of you become fans of the Eagles because you happen to like majestic, soaring birds? No...like most, you were probably born in, around, or in the general territory of the Philadelphia franchise.

Well, I'm a Skins fan because I was born in the Washington, D.C. area. The "Washington" part is the important part to me, they can be whatever the hell mascot they pick so long as the franchise doesn't move (relatively speaking, since they play in Maryland). I doubt many of you would drop your allegiance if your team decided to be the Philadelphia Bobcats or something. It might be annoying, but it's still Philly. Hell, I didn't stop rooting for the basketball team because they became the Wizards.

The only thing I'd miss would be the fight song, because it's pretty kick ass to sing, and is actually a good song. I mean, have you heard what the Lions sing after they score?

As for the logo, I'll admit to being fond of it. Admittedly, this is probably third hand information by the time I'm hearing it, but my understanding is that the logo was modeled after a local tribal chief and was actually meant to be a symbol of honor. Say what you will about the meaning behind the name, but I'm pretty sure the logo was never meant to offend. If it looked like the Chief Wahoo face from the Cleveland Indians, I'd be fully on board with removal, but based on what I know, I'd like to keep the logo and if the name needs to be changed, go with Warriors or something that goes with the logo.

If they both need to be changed, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it. The Washington part was always the important part.

*Side note, I work for a Federal Agency and have had dealings with Native Americans depending on what current projects I'm on. I know that for many of the tribes, maybe all of them, you have to meet some sort of blood quorum to be considered for membership, a certain percentage of your ancestry must be Native American. Of course, like anything, this is open to a certain amount of bribery, but I'd like to see one of these offensive/not offensive polls run where the only people that voted were actual registered blood members.

[PackWest]

*Side note, I work for a Federal Agency and have had dealings with Native Americans depending on what current projects I'm on. I know that for many of the tribes, maybe all of them, you have to meet some sort of blood quorum to be considered for membership, a certain percentage of your ancestry must be Native American. Of course, like anything, this is open to a certain amount of bribery, but I'd like to see one of these offensive/not offensive polls run where the only people that voted were actual registered blood members.

Disagree wholeheartedly with this part of your comment. While it may make sense in terms of federal law and benefits, the fact that the name is offensive isn't limited to some arbitrary blood quorum. Especially considering the quality of the records in the 1700-1900's.

The blood quorum thing reeks of Washington gerrymandering and I suspect your hope is that the results would be more favorable if your team could restrict the voting. And Danny boy put out some real crapola by front-loading the survey questions in his favor

The name is offensive regardless of who fucked who and who has papers to prove it. The rest of your post makes some valid points and thanks for sharing your POV- but the last part really put a washington spin on it, and this isn't a politically spinnable issue imo.

[Phoward12]

Disagree wholeheartedly with this part of your comment. While it may make sense in terms of federal law and benefits, the fact that the name is offensive isn't limited to some arbitrary blood quorum. Especially considering the quality of the records in the 1700-1900's.

The blood quorum thing reeks of Washington gerrymandering and I suspect your hope is that the results would be more favorable if your team could restrict the voting. And Danny boy put out some real crapola by front-loading the survey questions in his favor

The name is offensive regardless of who fucked who and who has papers to prove it. The rest of your post makes some valid points and thanks for sharing your POV- but the last part really put a washington spin on it, and this isn't a politically spinnable issue imo.

Well, let me try to make my point a different way, as spin was not my intent. Keep in mind I have no real dog in this fight. I really don't care if the name stays or goes, so I'd have no preferred outcome.

Maybe I wasn't clear on this, but these blood restrictions I'm speaking about are tribe imposed, not federally imposed. It has to do with their voting rolls for making tribal decisions, as well as some other things. It's been a few years so I can't remember all of it. Native American tribes can be awfully restrictive/racist against their own on certain matters.

If as many "true natives" hate the name as the anti-name faction would have you believe, I would think that restriction would favor the opposition as much as anything. I never saw Snyder's survey that you're referring to, so I have no idea how he frontloaded it, but based on the last 15 years of experiences, I wouldn't be shocked by anything. To me, the survey doesn't need more than three questions/directions.

1. Do you meet the criteria for blood membership as imposed by your tribe?
2. Prove it (Tribal ID or other identifier...tribes do issue things like this to tribe members.)
3. Does the name offend you?

I'm not sure what else you really need. Both sides aren't above water on this issue, there's been a lot of character assassination, finger-pointing, and accusations of people's true motives. I'm trying to figure a way to get it settled one way or the other, and the above seems like a start.

[PackWest]

What if my Dad meets the criteria, but I don't because of the bloodline issue ?
Is my opinion now worthless ? Am I now suddenly not offended when somebody uses the term or calls my Dad a Redskin ?

What about non-indians who are offended by the racist word- are their opinions marginalized merely because they don't meet the bloodline criteria ?
Is it OK for Indians to be offended by the N-word even though they have little or no african-american blood ?

For some issues, the bloodlines have some merit, but when it comes to offensive, racial slurs I fail to see how your ancestry impacts your sensibility

" only real Indians" get to vote or have an opinion or be offended ?

That's the part I am struggling with in your response

The survey needs only 1 question

1) Are you offended...? the rest is irrelevant imo

[Phoward12]

That's the part I am struggling with in your response.

Cutting down the quote. I shouldn't get involved in these discussions but I suppose as long as they remain civil, I have no problem continuing.

Part of it is the gray area of the word. Clearly, from your wording, i.e. "What about non-indians who are offended by the racist word" you've already made your decision. But there is a lot of linguistic debate on both sides of the issue, and I haven't made mine. It doesn't affect me day to day and I rarely use the full team name when speaking about them anyway.

As for the rest, it isn't my attempt to marginalize certain opinions so much as cut through the noise and hear from the people I want to hear from. You used to N-bomb as an example. That word has been clearly defined to be a slur, whereas "Redskin" still has much debate. I'm a white guy, have never been called the N-bomb to my knowledge, and while I know the word is offensive, I've never been personally denigrated by it, so I don't consider my opinion to mean nearly as much as say, a black guy who grew up in the Jim Crow south and had it used against him.

For this issue, I want to hear from the tribes members themselves, whom this word, if it truly is a slur, is targeted against. I do feel their opinion carries more weight than a blowhard columnist like Mike Wise, or on the other side, than a guy Larry Michael trots out in support of the name who turns out to not even be a Native American.

[ishimonster]

I (barely) respectfully disagree

That word has been clearly defined to be a slur, whereas "Redskin" still has much debate.

The word is a blatant slur that, like the N word, has been used in a derogatory manner for centuries. The ONLY reason people don't equivocate "the R word" with the N word is because Native Americans have such a marginalized voice in society today.

[harls]

The word is a blatant slur that, like the N word, has been used in a derogatory manner for centuries. The ONLY reason people don't equivocate "the R word" with the N word is because Native Americans have such a marginalized voice in society today.

Absolutely. Native Americans were called Redskins because our government wanted their blood stained skins (Red Skins) as proof that you had killed a Native american and that you should be rewarded. How can that be spun any other way then demeaning and and slur?