You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the one and only Spiceislander Talkshop. Please register and make your first post in the New Members Forum. Just mention 'Grenada' in your first post and you will be upgraded to full access.

#1 Nov 15, 2021 1:10 pm

Slice
Active

YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

For once in ah long time, tv was not boring.  I did not watch news until 6pm.  Grenada own Lewis Hamilton, was racing in Brazil, Washington Redskins was playing and winning, and watching horse racing took up my whole day.  I originally believe that Hamilton was going to lose.  He started tenth, but the man is so good, he overcome his start to win.  What a race.  The Redskins won, so ah was in TV heaven most of my day yesterday.

Offline

#2 Nov 16, 2021 8:51 am

New Historian
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

My Sunday sports heaven was:

Last MotoGP race of the year, and last race of the legendary Valentino Rossi, god of motorcycles!

Cricket T20 final, Australia (boo) beat New Zealand

The Hamilton race. Yes I'm a Ham-fan, but this year I want Mad Max to do it, love his aggressiveness and brilliant driving. What an end of season it's gonna be, 3 to go and all to play for!

I hate the fekkin Redskins. It's like calling a team the New York N**gers!!!

Offline

#3 Nov 16, 2021 10:37 am

Slice
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

You notice, I continue to use the Washington Redskins.  The new name is The Washington Football team.  Doh see the race thing in there.  We too damn sensitive.  A few Indian tribes ask that the name to remain the same, but in this new era he had to change it. I am die hard skins fan; despite living in Baltimore with the Ravens.  This Ravens fan is like a cult.  I want no parts of that cult.  Doh get me wrong ah hate Daniel Snyder owner of the skins, but ah continue to be a Redskins fan.

Offline

#4 Nov 16, 2021 12:56 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

"A few Indian tribes ask that the name to remain the same"

Which tribes? It's beyond doubt: the term Redskin is blatantly racist and should be consigned to history. Just like this disgusting logo:


Cleveland-logo.jpg

Offline

#5 Nov 16, 2021 1:45 pm

Slice
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

How Do Native Americans Really Feel About the Washington Redskins Nickname? Don't Use the Phone
I have no idea exactly what percentage of Native Americans approve or disapprove of these mascots and nicknames. But I can guarantee something else with even greater certainty: neither does the.
Jay Rosenstein
By
Jay Rosenstein, Contributor
Documentary Filmmaker and Professor of Media & Cinema Studies
05/31/2016 10:31am EDT | Updated December 6, 2017
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

2016-05-29-1464562844-3266130-prowashingtondude.jpg

Ever since I produced and directed the PBS documentary In Whose Honor?, released in 1997, about the controversy over American Indian mascots and nicknames in sports, I have followed the issue about as closely as anyone. And after all that time, there is one thing I can say about the mascot issue with certainty: I have no idea exactly what percentage of Native Americans approve or disapprove of these mascots and nicknames.

ADVERTISEMENT

But I can guarantee something else with even greater certainty: neither does the Washington Post.

As some people may be aware, the Washington Post recently announced the results of a poll to measure how Native Americans feel about the NFL's Washington Redskins' nickname. The poll concluded that nine out of 10 Native Americans have no problem with the name "Redskins", a seemingly stunning reversal of what appeared to be a growing movement of opposition to the name and the term. While that result probably led to the popping of champagne corks around the office of Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington NFL football team, it has also led to a great deal of confusion about this issue in the media.

There has been a sudden period of soul searching, especially from sports reporters who were previously secure in their opinions that the term "Redskins" was insulting and offensive to Native people. Some have started to ask where is the disconnect between what they believed to be true and the results of the poll.

Well, the answer is simple. The disconnect is, no pun intended, the telephone.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Washington Post poll was conducted exclusively by telephone. And just as most of us have warned our children, and even reminded ourselves, that people on the internet might not be who they claim to be, the very same thing is true of the telephone. The only thing you can be sure of from a telephone survey -- and even this is sketchy with improvements in voice automation -- is that the person on the other end is, well, a person.

So unless there is some Native American Yellow Pages that I am not aware of, the result of the Washington Post poll is not that 9 out of 10 Native Americans aren't offended by the name. The result of the poll is that 9 out of 10 people who claimed to be Native Americans over the telephone aren't offended by the name "Redskins". There's a big difference.

So who are these people who answered the survey and claim to be Native Americans on the telephone? In following the coverage of this issue over the past 20 years, I've seen a consistent pattern in the identities of those who frequently step up to be counted as Native Americans in order to weigh in with their opinions.

This undoubtedly includes people who identify themselves as Native Americans because, regardless of their race, they were born in America, which in their minds makes them native Americans.

ADVERTISEMENT

And it most definitely includes people who identify themselves as Native American due to some mysterious, small fractional quantity of American Indian blood they believe they have from some distant, often unidentified ancestor -- one who they almost always claim was Cherokee. (It's a well-known and long-running joke among Native Americans that white people who claim American Indian heritage always say they are Cherokee).

And of course, it also includes people who just say they are Native American on the telephone because -- what the hell, nobody is going to know the difference anyway. In short, are all these people really credible representatives of Native American opinions?

So, instead of relying on an anonymous telephone survey, let's look at some other information? There's this resolution from 2001, signed by the Chiefs (and one governor) of what's known as the "Five Civilized Tribes," which includes the Muscogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Oklahoma Seminole, and, naturally, the Cherokee Nations, opposing all American Indian sports mascots and nicknames. According to the group, these leaders now represent more than 500,000 Native American people (The Washington Post anonymous telephone survey, by comparison, had just over 500 respondents.) And that resolution was followed up by this one in 2013 that specifically called for the end of the Washington Redskins nickname.

While these resolutions don't guarantee that every member of the tribes is in agreement, what is beyond question is the authority of the signers to speak as Native American representatives of those nations. These are certainly not anonymous telephone responders.

The same is true of this resolution, from 2014, from the Council of the Navajo Nation, the largest Native American tribe with a population of just over 300,000, who joined in opposition of Native American mascots and nicknames.

And finally, the same is true of the many, many resolutions adopted over the past several decades by the National Congress of American Indians opposing Native American sports mascots and nicknames. In order to be voting member of the organization, one has to be able to prove his or her Native American heritage. Again, there are no anonymous voters.

There are many, many other such documents and resolutions from Native American nations and organizations, but I think I've made my point. While no one, least of all me, can say with total certainty what percentage of Native Americans approve of the Washington Redskins nickname, whose opinions do you want to believe: those of Native American leaders who can prove their identities, or those of 500 anonymous people who spoke by telephone to the Washington Post?

I know my answer.


Jay Rosenstein - Documentary Filmmaker and Professor of Media & Cinema Studies
Jay Rosenstein, Contributor
Documentary Filmmaker and Professor of Media & Cinema Studies

Offline

#6 Nov 16, 2021 7:34 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

I ent know nothing about no Washington Post poll, but it is plain common sense tat the term is offensive. The fact that "no one knows" if it is found to be offensive among the majority of Native Americans simply points to one thing: their total powerlessness, in American social and political life. If a team had a name that was "offensive to US blacks ("The Cleveland Coons"?), you can bet your life there'd be a thousand polls and lots of pressure for decades to change it. But Indians? Who gives a flying fart about those drunken bums on their reservations? Actually I like the 'Skins logo, it sends a strong message. But the name doesn't.

Offline

#7 Nov 16, 2021 8:27 pm

houston
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

The Edmonton Eskimos of the CFL have become the Edmonton Elks and it just don't sound right after 100 years.
The Chicago Black Hawks have the best logo in the NHL but that classic logo won't be around for much longer, it's on the endangered list.
The Cleveland Indians of MLB have changed there name and logo to some other silly boring name starting next season.
Where does it end, when do we stop offending people?
Are the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame next on the list?

Offline

#8 Nov 16, 2021 8:55 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

houston wrote:

The Edmonton Eskimos of the CFL have become the Edmonton Elks and it just don't sound right after 100 years.
The Chicago Black Hawks have the best logo in the NHL but that classic logo won't be around for much longer, it's on the endangered list.
The Cleveland Indians of MLB have changed there name and logo to some other silly boring name starting next season.
Where does it end, when do we stop offending people?
Are the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame next on the list?

It's about POWER, or the lack thereof. The "Irish"-Americans (a silly term, they're just Americans with an Irish-sounding last name) are not discriminated against, herded onto reservations, nor subjected to historical genocide. Edmonton Elks sounds great to me, as Canadian as they come. You saw the old Indians logo above? And that isn't insulting?

Offline

#9 Nov 16, 2021 9:22 pm

houston
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

It is an insulting logo and so is the term redskins.
How about the Atlanta Braves, world series champions with the tomahawk chop?
Names and logos of sports teams, that's all. I doubt that they were designed with the intention of offending anyone.

Offline

#10 Nov 16, 2021 9:51 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: YESTERDAY, WAS ONE OF THE FUN DAYS TO WATCH TV

"I doubt that they were designed with the intention of offending anyone."

Indians were (and are?) considered not even worthy of wondering if they were offended by team names or logos. Remember: The only good Injun is a dead Injun? They took their land, killed their buffalo, poisoned, raped and killed them by the millions - you really think anyone worried about their feelings?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB