http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrEl_r8xEE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCcrEl_r8xEE
Just a quick throwback for you. Thank God the tanned 1 had his homeboy to look out for him and knock SOME sense into him. Even Wade, the man who would crawl across hot coals I get to him, knows the guy is seriously and literally insane.
Quote from: wadesworld on September 14, 2013, 10:48:50 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrEl_r8xEE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCcrEl_r8xEE
Just a quick throwback for you. Thank God the tanned 1 had his homeboy to look out for him and knock SOME sense into him. Even Wade, the man who would crawl across hot coals I get to him, knows the guy is seriously and literally insane.
The best part of that video is when Shaq, off camera, asks, "the Gold?!"
Quote from: wadesworld on September 14, 2013, 10:48:50 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrEl_r8xEE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCcrEl_r8xEE
Just a quick throwback for you. Thank God the tanned 1 had his homeboy to look out for him and knock SOME sense into him. Even Wade, the man who would crawl across hot coals I get to him, knows the guy is seriously and literally insane.
Had too many cold ones tonight?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 15, 2013, 01:19:20 AM
Had too many cold ones tonight?
Don't drink. Was trash talking Badger football and a Badger fan friend of mine told me I should focus my anger on not being allowed to be the Warriors. I jokingly said I'm mad we aren't the Gold, which reminded me of this interview.
Quote from: wadesworld on September 15, 2013, 01:45:44 AM
Don't drink. Was trash talking Badger football and a Badger fan friend of mine told me I should focus my anger on not being allowed to be the Warriors. I jokingly said I'm mad we aren't the Gold, which reminded me of this interview.
I'm talking about the part where you think he is responsible for the Gold. We already know he wasn't, that has already been determined it was the Zizzo group in Milwaukee.
That ending to that Badger game was something.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 15, 2013, 01:53:56 AM
I'm talking about the part where you think he is responsible for the Gold. We already know he wasn't, that has already been determined it was the Zizzo group in Milwaukee.
That ending to that Badger game was something.
Fair enough. I don't follow a lot of topics on here and was too young to really follow the name change when it happened so truly don't know who was responsible for it. My apologies for being factually inaccurate. Think Wade's reaction is absolutely hilarious either way.
And that sure was a ridiculous ending to the Badger game. Awesome
I still can't believe we didn't go with The Blue.
The Zizzo Group was responsible for trying to sell the idea. Gold was Crean.
Hahahahaha. UW blows. They should be more worried about sitting at #41 in the new US News rankings. Not too impressive for the Harvard of the Midwest.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 15, 2013, 06:56:34 AM
The Zizzo Group was responsible for trying to sell the idea. Gold was Crean.
Incorrect, but why would that ever change with you.
Quote from: JerseyWarrior on September 14, 2013, 11:42:57 PM
The best part of that video is when Shaq, off camera, asks, "the Gold?!"
That is hysterical!
Quote from: Groin_pull on September 15, 2013, 09:04:36 AM
Hahahahaha. UW blows. They should be more worried about sitting at #41 in the new US News rankings. Not too impressive for the Harvard of the Midwest.
Who calls it the Harvard of the Midwest?
Quote from: ElDonBDon on September 15, 2013, 11:29:25 AM
Who calls it the Harvard of the Midwest?
41 is pretty damn good for a large public university.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on September 15, 2013, 11:29:25 AM
Who calls it the Harvard of the Midwest?
Ever talk to a UW fan or alum?
Quote from: 79Warrior on September 15, 2013, 11:40:54 AM
41 is pretty damn good for a large public university.
It's a far cry from what they think they are.
Quote from: Groin_pull on September 15, 2013, 11:41:43 AM
Ever talk to a UW fan or alum?
No doubt. They're proud of their school and think it's awesome, but none of the people I know who went to Madison are
that delusional.
In any case, 41 is a great spot for a public school, IMO. And while it's certainly no 'Harvard of the Midwest', it's definitely one of the premiere universities of the region, behind only a handful of schools (eg, Michigan, Chicago, Nwestern, Notre Dame, and Wash U, I suppose)
Quote from: ElDonBDon on September 15, 2013, 11:59:59 AM
No doubt. They're proud of their school and think it's awesome, but none of the people I know who went to Madison are that delusional.
In any case, 41 is a great spot for a public school, IMO. And while it's certainly no 'Harvard of the Midwest', it's definitely one of the premiere universities of the region, behind only a handful of schools (eg, Michigan, Chicago, Nwestern, Notre Dame, and Wash U, I suppose)
Obviously, we're not talking to the same people.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on September 15, 2013, 11:59:59 AM
In any case, 41 is a great spot for a public school, IMO. And while it's certainly no 'Harvard of the Midwest', it's definitely one of the premiere universities of the region, behind only a handful of schools (eg, Michigan, Chicago, Nwestern, Notre Dame, and Wash U, I suppose)
It's not bad...then again half of the University of California system (public) is ranked ahead of Madison and that system has seen its share of dents and hits the last few years. Michigan, Virginia, UNC, Ga. Tech, etc, etc all ranked higher. Still, UW-madison is a very good school...I especially loved dealing with all the "alums" when I was there (Platteville, Milwaukee, Stout, Oshkosh, LaCrosse, etc)...LOL
That name change only lasted a short time. Days? A week or two? I still think it was a conspiracy to make everyone content with the current nickname - and it worked beautifully. After the temporary "Gold" all the students were happy to go back to the Golden Eagles. They even had a "vote" on campus.
Quote from: djvern414 on September 15, 2013, 03:48:33 PM
That name change only lasted a short time. Days? A week or two? I still think it was a conspiracy to make everyone content with the current nickname - and it worked beautifully. After the temporary "Gold" all the students were happy to go back to the Golden Eagles. They even had a "vote" on campus.
The ol' two steps forward one step back kinda move, eh? Interesting theory, never thought about that.
Now when someone laments 'man it sucks we're not the Warriors anymore' the other person can respond 'yea, but at least we're not the gold'.
I remember that vote. In fact, didn't everyone just write in "Warriors?" LOL I remember the MU administration was mad and if my memory is correct, they did a second vote and specifically said that they will not count votes for "Warriors."
Reminds me when NASA allowed people to write-in names for a space shuttle or something and Stephen Colbert, with the help of his show and social media, got the write-ins to name it after him. NASA didn't count those votes. They also didn't count the 2nd highest write-in vote, which was "Xenu" the god in scientology LOL. Who knew NASA was PC?
Quote from: Groin_pull on September 15, 2013, 11:41:43 AM
Ever talk to a UW fan or alum?
you come across as jealous...
i like the smallness of mu...but academically the two don't compare. it's surely not apples to apples, so why even bother...just comes across as a petty inferiority complex.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 15, 2013, 09:20:25 AM
Incorrect, but why would that ever change with you.
no, he's correct...crean's a prick.
Quote from: Groin_pull on September 15, 2013, 09:04:36 AM
Hahahahaha. UW blows. They should be more worried about sitting at #41 in the new US News rankings. Not too impressive for the Harvard of the Midwest.
I had always heard Michigan referred to as the Harvard of the Midwest.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 15, 2013, 09:20:25 AM
Incorrect, but why would that ever change with you.
I'm correct. Ask Hoopaloop. He agrees.
Quote from: djvern414 on September 15, 2013, 03:48:33 PM
That name change only lasted a short time. Days? A week or two? I still think it was a conspiracy to make everyone content with the current nickname - and it worked beautifully. After the temporary "Gold" all the students were happy to go back to the Golden Eagles. They even had a "vote" on campus.
I've had the chance to talk to a few of the boards members who were around back then. It wasn't said outright but I can almost guarantee that this is exactly what happened.
Isn't northwestern or university of Chicago the best school in the Midwest? I feel like one of those would be the "Harvard of the Midwest"
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 15, 2013, 08:17:58 PM
Isn't northwestern or university of Chicago the best school in the Midwest? I feel like one of those would be the "Harvard of the Midwest"
Definitely, but Michigan is right up there with them. Chicago seems more like an MIT with their lack of DI sports and all.
UW at Madison is definately not be in the same class as Northwestern and U. Chicago..., but it might well be the Harvard of Dane County.
Quote from: djvern414 on September 15, 2013, 03:48:33 PM
That name change only lasted a short time. Days? A week or two? I still think it was a conspiracy to make everyone content with the current nickname - and it worked beautifully. After the temporary "Gold" all the students were happy to go back to the Golden Eagles. They even had a "vote" on campus.
According to a few board members I spoke to at the time (I was interviewed for a few articles in the Journal Sentinel and others, so I wanted their take before the interviews), it was anything but that. It was the plan to go with Gold, presented to the Board, bought off by the board and then they actually doubled down on it the first few days after it blew up in their faces. Father Wild admitted as much. Bad, bad, bad. PRN is right that Zizzo was their to sell it, but they also put the whole thing together as a viable alternative to Warriors and GE according to the BOT members I spoke to. Owned it completely.
I'll still never forget these quotes...unbelievable.
"You're going to see opinions and attitudes change as the Gold develops and as we put out into the marketplace the future of what Gold is."
-Anne Zizzo
""Personally, I wanted to be sure the discussion was thoughtful and that we reached out to different stakeholders. We expected the debate to unfold just the way it did."
-Anne Zizzo (really, just the way it did with 93% of the people against it. OMG)
So ... do you like the nickname 'Gold'?
No (92.5%)
Yes (7.5%)
Total votes: 13,920
Memory lane....good times...I love the one about the NFL team having to change their nickname and high priced attorneys are going to make it happen. 8 years later and looks to me like no NFL team with an Indian name has changed their name. ::)
http://www.onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/czabegold.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/sports/ncaabasketball/18marquette.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/marquettes-trustee-losers.html
http://www.jenders.com/2009/07/29/marquette-warriors-logo/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/john-f-bergstrom-and-gold-decision.html
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2005/05/marquette-gold.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O7oaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N0UEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6215,5765421&dq=marquette+gold+nickname&hl=en
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/alumna-reacts-to-bergstrom-talk.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/john-j-stollenwerk-explains-recants.html
That makes sense. I'm trying to remember the collective psychology of the campus at the time. But when they put together a vote (which IIRC had only 4 options for names), I'm not sure what that was supposed to prove. Ultimately, I think it did make students somewhat complacent against a growing surge of advocates for "Warriors."
This season needs to start already...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 15, 2013, 08:14:44 PM
I've had the chance to talk to a few of the boards members who were around back then. It wasn't said outright but I can almost guarantee that this is exactly what happened.
Not buying the conspiracy theory. However, the BoT did take took the extra step of saying that write-in votes for Warriors wouldn't be counted, which led to a lot of pro-Warriors alums not bothering to vote. In the end, they counted the Warrior write-ins and used the low-ish number to prove that people didn't want that nickname back.
It was a debacle from start to finish.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 16, 2013, 07:51:21 AM
Not buying the conspiracy theory. However, the BoT did take took the extra step of saying that write-in votes for Warriors wouldn't be counted, which led to a lot of pro-Warriors alums not bothering to vote. In the end, they counted the Warrior write-ins and used the low-ish number to prove that people didn't want that nickname back.
Yup. Dishonest people all around that debacle.
Quote from: djvern414 on September 15, 2013, 03:48:33 PM
That name change only lasted a short time. Days? A week or two? I still think it was a conspiracy to make everyone content with the current nickname - and it worked beautifully. After the temporary "Gold" all the students were happy to go back to the Golden Eagles. They even had a "vote" on campus.
Incorrect. Marquette was never the "Gold." The name change was merely proposed, never officially adopted.
Should have gone back to Hilltoppers or Golden Avalanche.
To this date I will continue to maintain that the "Gold" was better than whatever we have been left with.
On a list of preferred names:
1. Warriors
2. Hilltoppers
3. Avalanche
4. Jumpin' Jesuits
5. Golden Warriors
6. Avalanche Warriors
7. Jesuit Avalanche
8. Golden Warring Hilltoppers
...
...
75. Gold
...
...
1267. Pretty Flowers
...
...
4,651,111. Golden Eagles
Quote from: MUCam on September 16, 2013, 09:03:36 AM
To this date I will continue to maintain that the "Gold" was better than whatever we have been left with.
On a list of preferred names:
1. Warriors
2. Hilltoppers
3. Avalanche
4. Jumpin' Jesuits
5. Golden Warriors
6. Avalanche Warriors
7. Jesuit Avalanche
8. Golden Warring Hilltoppers
...
...
75. Gold
...
...
1267. Pretty Flowers
...
...
4,651,111. Golden Eagles
I totally agree.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 15, 2013, 08:56:20 PM
According to a few board members I spoke to at the time (I was interviewed for a few articles in the Journal Sentinel and others, so I wanted their take before the interviews), it was anything but that. It was the plan to go with Gold, presented to the Board, bought off by the board and then they actually doubled down on it the first few days after it blew up in their faces. Father Wild admitted as much. Bad, bad, bad. PRN is right that Zizzo was their to sell it, but they also put the whole thing together as a viable alternative to Warriors and GE according to the BOT members I spoke to. Owned it completely.
I'll still never forget these quotes...unbelievable.
"You're going to see opinions and attitudes change as the Gold develops and as we put out into the marketplace the future of what Gold is."
-Anne Zizzo
""Personally, I wanted to be sure the discussion was thoughtful and that we reached out to different stakeholders. We expected the debate to unfold just the way it did."
-Anne Zizzo (really, just the way it did with 93% of the people against it. OMG)
So ... do you like the nickname 'Gold'?
No (92.5%)
Yes (7.5%)
Total votes: 13,920
Memory lane....good times...I love the one about the NFL team having to change their nickname and high priced attorneys are going to make it happen. 8 years later and looks to me like no NFL team with an Indian name has changed their name. ::)
http://www.onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/czabegold.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/sports/ncaabasketball/18marquette.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/marquettes-trustee-losers.html
http://www.jenders.com/2009/07/29/marquette-warriors-logo/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/john-f-bergstrom-and-gold-decision.html
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2005/05/marquette-gold.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O7oaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N0UEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6215,5765421&dq=marquette+gold+nickname&hl=en
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/alumna-reacts-to-bergstrom-talk.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/05/john-j-stollenwerk-explains-recants.html
the fact that dumb clam is still on MU's BOT says a lot about the way this University is run.
Quote from: MUCam on September 16, 2013, 09:03:36 AM
To this date I will continue to maintain that the "Gold" was better than whatever we have been left with.
On a list of preferred names:
1. Warriors
2. Hilltoppers
3. Avalanche
4. Jumpin' Jesuits
5. Golden Warriors
6. Avalanche Warriors
7. Jesuit Avalanche
8. Golden Warring Hilltoppers
...
...
75. Gold
...
...
1267. Pretty Flowers
...
...
4,651,111. Golden Eagles
93% of MU alumni, students, etc, disagree. Gold was horrific.
Which is worse, gold or orange?
Quote from: MUCam on September 16, 2013, 09:03:36 AM
To this date I will continue to maintain that the "Gold" was better than whatever we have been left with.
On a list of preferred names:
1. Warriors
2. Hilltoppers
3. Avalanche
4. Jumpin' Jesuits
5. Golden Warriors
6. Avalanche Warriors
7. Jesuit Avalanche
8. Golden Warring Hilltoppers
...
...
75. Gold
...
...
1267. Pretty Flowers
...
...
4,651,111. Golden Eagles
They missed a huge opportunity to just go back to "Hilltoppers" and hide behind "It's MU's original name"
It would be really hard to raise a big stink about that.
(http://wiki.muscoop.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/nickname/bricky.jpg)
Bricky's back!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 15, 2013, 08:56:20 PM
Memory lane....good times...I love the one about the NFL team having to change their nickname and high priced attorneys are going to make it happen. 8 years later and looks to me like no NFL team with an Indian name has changed their name. ::)
Probably just a matter of time in that NFL team's case. Maybe not next year or the year after that, but I'd be very surprised of the the Washington Redskins exist 10 years from now.
It was the end of my junior year so I can remember the situation pretty distinctly. We were the Gold officially for a total of 6 days before they decided to scrap it and have the vote.
I was an RA and during that 6 day period was the end of the year thank you event they have every year for the RA's where we got to go up to the 5th floor of the union and feel like we're cool for an hour. Well Fr. Wild always gives a little speech and obviously couldn't avoid the big issue. He joked about how they were embroiled in a bit of a controversy but they really believed in the Gold name and had confidence that after the initial firestorm it would work well. They said they would be sticking with it and encouraged the student leaders to have a positive attitude about it. Needless to say a few days later it was done.
Very interesting time on campus.
My main memory is that Sports Illustrated columnist Steve Rushin (an MU alum) absolutely -- and hilariously -- ripped the university and ridiculed the decision. Within days (hours?), The Gold was history.
I'm sure there were many other factors, but this speaks to the power that SI used to have in the pre-Web days.
Quote from: MU82 on September 16, 2013, 11:24:37 AM
My main memory is that Sports Illustrated columnist Steve Rushin (an MU alum) absolutely -- and hilariously -- ripped the university and ridiculed the decision. Within days (hours?), The Gold was history.
I'm sure there were many other factors, but this speaks to the power that SI used to have in the pre-Web days.
2005 was "pre-web??"
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 15, 2013, 08:17:58 PM
Isn't northwestern or university of Chicago the best school in the Midwest? I feel like one of those would be the "Harvard of the Midwest"
According to Barry Alvarez, it's Nebraska :D
Quote from: mujivitz06 on September 16, 2013, 10:56:25 AM
It was the end of my junior year so I can remember the situation pretty distinctly. We were the Gold officially for a total of 6 days before they decided to scrap it and have the vote.
I was an RA and during that 6 day period was the end of the year thank you event they have every year for the RA's where we got to go up to the 5th floor of the union and feel like we're cool for an hour. Well Fr. Wild always gives a little speech and obviously couldn't avoid the big issue. He joked about how they were embroiled in a bit of a controversy but they really believed in the Gold name and had confidence that after the initial firestorm it would work well. They said they would be sticking with it and encouraged the student leaders to have a positive attitude about it. Needless to say a few days later it was done.
Very interesting time on campus.
It must have been in that 6-day period then, when a buddy of mine went to town at the spirit shop--all "Golden Eagles" items had their prices slashed.
Quote from: avid1010 on September 15, 2013, 06:18:47 PM
you come across as jealous...
i like the smallness of mu...but academically the two don't compare. it's surely not apples to apples, so why even bother...just comes across as a petty inferiority complex.
I beg to differ. UW @ Madison's high ratings involve post grad programs. The undergrad education is really nothing special.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 16, 2013, 10:45:58 AM
Probably just a matter of time in that NFL team's case. Maybe not next year or the year after that, but I'd be very surprised of the the Washington Redskins exist 10 years from now.
Probably, especially in this PC world we live in. I wouldn't be surprised that Cow
boys will have to change some day...wouldn't want to offend any genders. Chiefs will be on the list, even though the name has nothing to do with Indians. I just found it interesting that 8 years ago this was supposed to be imminent?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Probably, especially in this PC world we live in. I wouldn't be surprised that Cowboys will have to change some day...wouldn't want to offend any genders. Chiefs will be on the list, even though the name has nothing to do with Indians. I just found it interesting that 8 years ago this was supposed to be imminent?
While the KC Chiefs were not technically named after Indian chiefs, they still use an arrowhead in their logo. Much like Marquette, the use of Native American imagery is what PCers will find off-putting, not the name itself.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 16, 2013, 10:04:56 AM
They missed a huge opportunity to just go back to "Hilltoppers" and hide behind "It's MU's original name"
It would be really hard to raise a big stink about that.
+1. I never understood why this was never even proposed or talked about. It seemed the obvious choice, and a pretty decent compromise for all sides.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Probably, especially in this PC world we live in. I wouldn't be surprised that Cowboys will have to change some day...wouldn't want to offend any genders. Chiefs will be on the list, even though the name has nothing to do with Indians. I just found it interesting that 8 years ago this was supposed to be imminent?
You mean the Chefs?
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/WPOZbG7ibEE/hqdefault.jpg?feature=og)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Chiefs will be on the list, even though the name has nothing to do with Indians.
Huh? That team with the arrowhead logo on its helmet that plays in Arrowhead Stadium? I'm listening...
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 16, 2013, 03:26:58 PM
Huh? That team with the arrowhead logo on its helmet that plays in Arrowhead Stadium? I'm listening...
I believe the team was named after the former KC mayor (Kansas governor?) whose nickname was The Chief. No, not Robert Parish.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Probably, especially in this PC world we live in. I wouldn't be surprised that Cowboys will have to change some day...wouldn't want to offend any genders. Chiefs will be on the list, even though the name has nothing to do with Indians. I just found it interesting that 8 years ago this was supposed to be imminent?
I don't think taking offense to Redskins is strictly a PC issue.
Unlike other nicknames like Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, Braves, Sioux, etc., Redskins is inarguably a slur.
Pretty sure nobody will ever rationally suggest a name change for the Cowboys.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Probably, especially in this PC world we live in. I wouldn't be surprised that Cowboys will have to change some day...wouldn't want to offend any genders. Chiefs will be on the list, even though the name has nothing to do with Indians. I just found it interesting that 8 years ago this was supposed to be imminent?
I'm as anti-pc as they come, but anyone who doesn't see REDSKINS as offensive is a caveman.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 16, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
I don't think taking offense to Redskins is strictly a PC issue.
Unlike other nicknames like Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, Braves, Sioux, etc., Redskins is inarguably a slur.
Pretty sure nobody will ever rationally suggest a name change for the Cowboys.
Agreed. Equating Redskins and Cowboys is pretty funny.
Redskins has to go, and it will. Not all native mascots are bad, when done right (see Florida State Seminoles)
Chiefs are probably fine, as are the Braves. Indians might be ok if they changed their logo, which is pretty offensive.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 16, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
I believe the team was named after the former KC mayor (Kansas governor?) whose nickname was The Chief. No, not Robert Parish.
The Chiefs name was chosen through fan contest after the franchise moved to KC from Dallas (where they were known as the Texans).
The most popular submission was actually "Mules," but that was shot down by management, which chose Chiefs instead.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 16, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
I believe the team was named after the former KC mayor (Kansas governor?) whose nickname was The Chief. No, not Robert Parish.
I'll admit to not knowing the history of this, but a quick bit of research indicates that the name was picked after a fan contest (in which numerous people suggested the Chiefs). While sources do indicate that it was based on (or in honor of) the mayor's nickname, they also suggest that the nickname was related to his role in a Native-American themed organization. In any event, the Chiefs have embraced the Native-American imagery over the years, so any connection with a non-Native-American origin is pretty much gone. Some could argue that they are "inseparably linked."
Mind you, I'm not suggesting that they need to change the name. I was just questioning the claim that the name has nothing to do with Indians.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 16, 2013, 03:35:27 PM
The Chiefs name was chosen through fan contest after the franchise moved to KC from Dallas (where they were known as the Texans).
The most popular submission was actually "Mules," but that was shot down by management, which chose Chiefs instead.
From the Chiefs website:
In early '63, Hunt had taken scouting trips to cities such as Atlanta and Miami.
Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle learned of Hunt's interest in a new home for the Texans and extended an invitation for Hunt and Jack Steadman to move the franchise to Mid-America. After the duo visited Kansas City on an incognito basis, an ambitious campaign took shape to deliver on Bartle's guarantee to Hunt of tripling the season-ticket base the Texans had enjoyed in Dallas.
Kansas City's mayor, nicknamed "Chief," also promised to add 3,000 permanent seats to Municipal Stadium, as well as 11,000 temporary bleacher seats. Along with Bartle, a number of other prominent Kansas Citians stepped forward to aid in the efforts, putting together more than 1,000 workers to sell season tickets. On May 22nd, Hunt announced he was moving the franchise to Kansas City.
Hunt and Stram initially planned on calling the relocated team the Kansas City Texans, but thanks to the insistence of Steadman, the team was officially christened the Chiefs on May 26th, in part to honor the efforts of Bartle. http://www.kcchiefs.com/team/chiefs-history/1960s.html (http://www.kcchiefs.com/team/chiefs-history/1960s.html)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 16, 2013, 03:39:55 PM
From the Chiefs website:
In early '63, Hunt had taken scouting trips to cities such as Atlanta and Miami. Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle learned of Hunt's interest in a new home for the Texans and extended an invitation for Hunt and Jacklenny the cool Steadman to move the franchise to Mid-America. After the duo visited Kansas City on an incognito basis, an ambitious campaign took shape to deliver on Bartle's guarantee to Hunt of tripling the season-ticket base the Texans had enjoyed in Dallas. Kansas City's mayor, nicknamed "Chief," also promised to add 3,000 permanent seats to Municipal Stadium, as well as 11,000 temporary bleacher seats. Along with Bartle, a number of other prominent Kansas Citians stepped forward to aid in the efforts, putting together more than 1,000 workers to sell season tickets. On May 22nd, Hunt announced he was moving the franchise to Kansas City. Hunt and Stram initially planned on calling the relocated team the Kansas City Texans, but thanks to the insistence of Steadman, the team was officially christened the Chiefs on May 26th, in part to honor the efforts of Bartle.
http://www.kcchiefs.com/team/chiefs-history/1960s.html (http://www.kcchiefs.com/team/chiefs-history/1960s.html)
From the KC Star:
Only they couldn't really be the Texans when they got here.
"Lamar and Hank, they wanted to call it the Kansas City Texans," Steadman said, laughing and adding, "So finally I convinced Lamar that it wasn't going to work, and we decided to have a naming contest."
The "Rename the Dallas Texans Contest," co-sponsored by The Star, drew 4,866 responses and 1,020 different nicknames from 21 states.
The Mules ruled, with 272 submissions, and "Royals" was second with 269.
There were, as it happened, 42 submissions of Chiefs, and the contest winner would prove to be Everett L. Diemler, who won a Plymouth Valiant by virtue of the tie breaker. His guess of 10,711 season tickets sold by May 1 was just 97 below the actual.
As for how the name truly was determined?
On an internal memo on May 16, 1963, perhaps an unofficial finalist list, Steadman sought staff input on 10 ideas: Chiefs, Drovers, Mokans, Mules, Pioneers, Plainsmen, Royals, Stars, Stockers and Texans.
In an attached handwritten note to Hunt that was among numerous items furnished for this story by Chiefs historian Bob Moore, Steadman wrote, "I figured since the staff would be responsible for selling and working with our new name, they should vote for it. No pressure applied."
At least three of the seven he sent came back checked "Royals."
But Steadman was steadfast.
"I told Lamar, 'We've got to name this thing after Roe Bartle,'" said Steadman, noting the nickname the mayor had acquired through his dedicated work with the Boy Scouts and in politics. "We've got to name it 'Chiefs.'"
And so they were named on May 26, 1963, just weeks before the move itself that was one of the few details Steadman didn't seem to totally recall.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/15/4294969/fifty-years-ago-pro-football-moved.html#storylink=cpy
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 16, 2013, 03:39:55 PM
Hunt and Stram initially planned on calling the relocated team the Kansas City Texans, but thanks to the insistence of Steadman, the team was officially christened the Chiefs on May 26th, in part to honor the efforts of Bartle.
The "in part" thing suggests to me that they thought it was a good name, and it was an added bonus that the name was a nod to someone who was instrumental in bringing the team.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 16, 2013, 03:14:17 PM
While the KC Chiefs were not technically named after Indian chiefs, they still use an arrowhead in their logo. Much like Marquette, the use of Native American imagery is what PCers will find off-putting, not the name itself.
Which is why going to a non Native American imagery is the answer.....ooops....no its not, because it is
IMPOSSIBLE to not associate one with the other. Blackhawks logo ok. Chiefs arrowhead not ok? The silliness just never ends.
Meanwhile, a number of Indian high schools on various reservations in this country use the name.....drum roll....Redskins. Great story this weekend about that with a few interviews from those running those schools (who happen to support the Redskins name with Washington as well).
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 16, 2013, 03:26:58 PM
Huh? That team with the arrowhead logo on its helmet that plays in Arrowhead Stadium? I'm listening...
The Chiefs were originally the Dallas Texans who moved to KC. They got their name Chiefs from Kansas City Mayor, Harold Bartle. Bartle was known as "The Chief" because of his scouting exploits in the Boy Scouts and founder of the Scouting Society. He was the executive of the Boy Scouts for the KC area for 28 years. They were going to keep the Texans name, but decided to honor Bartle with the name change. names Mules and the Royals were the other options for names.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 16, 2013, 03:32:54 PM
I'm as anti-pc as they come, but anyone who doesn't see REDSKINS as offensive is a caveman.
Apparently some of the Navajo and other tribes don't, as their high schools have that nickname. Go figure. Are you calling them cavemen....is that offensive to cavemen? Can we get a ruling on that? ;D
(http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/image3/sub4/up_with_cavemensm.jpg)
Some people find some things offensive, others do not. That's not going to change.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 16, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
I don't think taking offense to Redskins is strictly a PC issue.
Unlike other nicknames like Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, Braves, Sioux, etc., Redskins is inarguably a slur.
Pretty sure nobody will ever rationally suggest a name change for the Cowboys.
You know how many rational things have gone by the way side over the decades? Or how many IRRATIONAL things are now entering the world today. I could give you a head spinning list from the great land of Californiastan. Our latest is the bathroom your kid gets to "choose" to attend. Boys room for boys, girls room for girls....not so fast. Nope. Now my 11 year old daughter can have a boy in what used to be a place only girls could go. Rational.....an abundance of it.
Would it seriously surprise me that in 50 years nicknames that have gender identification are gone? Absolutely not. It is one of the reasons the Orangemen changed to the Orange and a number of high schools have made similar changes from anything that associates a specific gender. Just a matter of time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:07:56 PM
Meanwhile, a number of Indian high schools on various reservations in this country use the name.....drum roll....Redskins. Great story this weekend about that with a few interviews from those running those schools (who happen to support the Redskins name with Washington as well).
It's a completely different situation. Just as many consider it acceptable for African Americans to use the N-Word, Native Americans can call themselves Redskins as much as they want. White people using the word is offensive. And yes, you are going to find groups of natives in any group who say they don't have a problem with it, but there are more that will take issue.
Picture it this way instead. What would you say if a university that was predominately white decided to name their team the Spics? Or the Towelheads? Or the N*****s? I assume you wouldn't be okay with it. Why is it so different with Native Americans? Do they not deserve the same respect as other minority groups?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:07:56 PM
Which is why going to a non Native American imagery is the answer.....ooops....no its not, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to not associate one with the other. Blackhawks logo ok. Chiefs arrowhead not ok? The silliness just never ends.
I don't see widespread objections to Chiefs or Blackhawks because .... they're not slurs. Can you not recognize the difference between those names and Redskins?
QuoteMeanwhile, a number of Indian high schools on various reservations in this country use the name.....drum roll....Redskins. Great story this weekend about that with a few interviews from those running those schools (who happen to support the Redskins name with Washington as well).
I once heard a black rapper use the 'N' word.
Therefore it's totally not a slur.
Here's a report with comments from one of
three majority Indian schools nationwide that uses the Redskins name. Note that they believe that non-Indian entities should avoid using it.
"If you were to put this in an urban area where the population is basically white, unless there is a cultural connection, it would be inappropriate."
http://cnsmaryland.org/interactives/redskins-map/index.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
Some people find some things offensive, others do not. That's not going to change.
Yes, but by that logic, nothing is offensive... which isn't true.
America doesn't need to cater to every special interest group out there... but we also cannot be afraid of evolution and change.
Some things that were ok in 1950, aren't ok in 2013.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:25:43 PM
You know how many rational things have gone by the way side over the decades? Or how many IRRATIONAL things are now entering the world today. I could give you a head spinning list from the great land of Californiastan. Our latest is the bathroom your kid gets to "choose" to attend. Boys room for boys, girls room for girls....not so fast. Nope. Now my 11 year old daughter can have a boy in what used to be a place only girls could go. Rational.....an abundance of it.
Chico's ...while I disagree with the ruling in the case you cite above, as you well know the circumstances there are not nearly as simple as you describe. The case in no way whatsoever says boys can randomly choose to use the girls bathroom, or vice versa.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:25:43 PM
You know how many rational things have gone by the way side over the decades? Or how many IRRATIONAL things are now entering the world today. I could give you a head spinning list from the great land of Californiastan. Our latest is the bathroom your kid gets to "choose" to attend. Boys room for boys, girls room for girls....not so fast. Nope. Now my 11 year old daughter can have a boy in what used to be a place only girls could go. Rational.....an abundance of it.
Would it seriously surprise me that in 50 years nicknames that have gender identification are gone? Absolutely not. It is one of the reasons the Orangemen changed to the Orange and a number of high schools have made similar changes from anything that associates a specific gender. Just a matter of time.
Oh here we go again.
Chicos is longing for the days where racists could be racist without suffering from public backlash.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:25:43 PM
You know how many rational things have gone by the way side over the decades? Or how many IRRATIONAL things are now entering the world today. I could give you a head spinning list from the great land of Californiastan. Our latest is the bathroom your kid gets to "choose" to attend. Boys room for boys, girls room for girls....not so fast. Nope. Now my 11 year old daughter can have a boy in what used to be a place only girls could go. Rational.....an abundance of it.
Would it seriously surprise me that in 50 years nicknames that have gender identification are gone? Absolutely not. It is one of the reasons the Orangemen changed to the Orange and a number of high schools have made similar changes from anything that associates a specific gender. Just a matter of time.
you ever look at all the completely irrational things on the other side of the spectrum, and think maybe there will always be extremists?
you make a case that we are oversensitive to racism, gender inequality, etc... yet a fox analyst goes on twitter last night and claims that liberal judges gave the miss usa crown to an indian woman rather than to someone that really embodies america like miss kansas.
or how about the cops at the appleton, wi farmers market who are in trouble for drawing their weapons on two guys approaching the market with assault rifles, while in florida you can legally chase down and shoot an unarmed man...only to have people make hoodie jokes on basketball message boards.
or our sheriff in milwaukee serving up beer at concealed carry classes...with pictures in the journal sentinel.
interesting you mention 50 years as a measuring stick...martin luther king gave his "i have a dream" speech 50 years ago, and i bet many people were commenting just as you are now. i'd much rather over-correct than not make big enough corrections. so if you don't like CA, move on down to AL and you'll likely feel right at home.
i just don't understand your logic...unless you're saying extremism is bad...in which case you get a gold star. or you simply point to extreme instances in order to provide a fear factor to promote opinions that would otherwise result in public backlash.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
Apparently some of the Navajo and other tribes don't, as their high schools have that nickname. Go figure. Are you calling them cavemen....is that offensive to cavemen? Can we get a ruling on that? ;D
(http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/image3/sub4/up_with_cavemensm.jpg)
Some people find some things offensive, others do not. That's not going to change.
Redskins was a slur even in the dark ages when I was growing up - an intentional one used in movies and TV back in the "good old days" to connote Native Americans as savages. I know you long for those days. I don't. The fact that "some people" are okay with it is meaningless. Some people are okay with virtually anything.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 16, 2013, 04:31:54 PM
It's a completely different situation. Just as many consider it acceptable for African Americans to use the N-Word, Native Americans can call themselves Redskins as much as they want. White people using the word is offensive. And yes, you are going to find groups of natives in any group who say they don't have a problem with it, but there are more that will take issue.
Picture it this way instead. What would you say if a university that was predominately white decided to name their team the Spics? Or the Towelheads? Or the N*****s? I assume you wouldn't be okay with it. Why is it so different with Native Americans? Do they not deserve the same respect as other minority groups?
I get it, trust me I get it. And yes, there will be some that are offended and some that are not. In terms of "how many"...we'll never know. That's simply speculation. There have been polls that suggest actually not many are offended, only to have the polls discredited. In 2002, Sports Illustrated did such a poll and 75% of Native Americans had no problem with Redskins. Guess what, that didn't sit well with some PC folks so they just discredit the poll until eventually you get a result they can live with. In 2004, Anneburg did the same poll and found 91% of Native Americans surveyed in 48 states found the name Redskins acceptable. Again, the poll was discredited.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
As for the second paragraph, someone tried that defense the other day....thankfully the judge said no dice. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/judge_n-word_illegal_at_work_--_even_if_youre_black.html
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 16, 2013, 06:36:22 PM
Redskins was a slur even in the dark ages when I was growing up - an intentional one used in movies and TV back in the "good old days" to connote Native Americans as savages. I know you long for those days. I don't. The fact that "some people" are okay with it is meaningless. Some people are okay with virtually anything.
Not some...91%....but hey http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
You might want to read how the Redskins got their name....you know, named after their coach who was Native American and he had a number of Native Americans on his team in Boston (they were the Boston Braves)...they went so far as to paint their faces with war paint. Look, I get that some people are offended, you can find people offended by anything. Some people are offended because it is the PC thing to do...get offended, without even understanding what they are offended about or the origins. What if we have a rugby team here in the States called the All Blacks, like New Zealand does. Would it be an outrage? Does it have anything to do with ethnicity? Would there still be people PCing to death the need for a change because they have no idea what it is and it just sounds bad? Of course.
Another poll, this time not exclusive to Native Americans....so I guess it doesn't matter, but I'll share it anyway since it is only three months old. http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-story-2
Do I think it will be changed...yes, I agree with Pakuni that it will eventually be changed. Do I think other names in this culture will also be changed? I see no reason why not based on what I have seen over the decades....eventually it will be the Gold vs the Turquoise until someone complains about the additional importance we put on precious metals.
Reilly's schtick has gotten old, but this is an interesting take.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds)
My assumption is that the backlash on this article will be that a HS consisting primarily of Native American students has the right to use the name.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 19, 2013, 11:16:21 AM
Reilly's schtick has gotten old, but this is an interesting take.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds)
My assumption is that the backlash on this article will be that a HS consisting primarily of Native American students has the right to use the name.
This is the money line: "Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you."
That sums it up. Never underestimate the power of white guilt in this country and the sanctimonious nonsense that comes with it. If you aren't offended, by golly there are a bunch of peeps here that will tell you just how offensive it is and how you should be reacting. And how dare you if you aren't acting that way. They might even call you a name if you don't react, like Uncle Tom. Is there a "Native American" equivalent? Good for Reilly to not be in the herd mentality and call out what the vast majority of folks actually are saying, rather than the one-offs that the press and the PC crowd puts up as THE POSITION.
I'm sure Reilly is getting drilled today for using some of the same stats and references I did the other day, so I expect he is getting drilled hard. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 02:31:09 PM
This is the money line: "Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you."
That sums it up. Never underestimate the power of white guilt in this country and the sanctimonious nonsense that comes with it. If you aren't offended, by golly there are a bunch of peeps here that will tell you just how offensive it is and how you should be reacting. And how dare you if you aren't acting that way. They might even call you a name if you don't react, like Uncle Tom. Is there a "Native American" equivalent? Good for Reilly to not be in the herd mentality and call out what the vast majority of folks actually are saying, rather than the one-offs that the press and the PC crowd puts up as THE POSITION.
I'm sure Reilly is getting drilled today for using some of the same stats and references I did the other day, so I expect he is getting drilled hard. ;)
This actually reminds me of the whole North Dakota Fighting Sioux debacle. NCAA says the name is offensive, the tribe itself says it isnt and wants the school to keep the logo and nickname. School drops the logo and nickname...
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/10298/
From Reilly's article:
"It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.
How long before the state of Oklahoma is pressured to change it's name?
Enough, already.
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on September 19, 2013, 04:40:32 PM
From Reilly's article:
"It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.
How long before the state of Oklahoma is pressured to change it's name?
Enough, already.
Los Angeles...."City of Angels"....I'm sure there are people wildly offended ::) by the religious overtones. Need to change the name (the county already changed the logo to remove one religious symbol because 3 people were offended). But hey, we all need to be outraged, even if those that are supposed to be outraged (those people identified by other people...by the way), are not outraged. Its such a colossal joke sometimes, but a cottage industry for an entire ideology and a good portion of the press in this country.
I don't see how anybody can think it'll be a good thing when homages (Warriors, Fighting Sioux, Braves, Chiefs, etc) to Native Americans disaapear. What image are we then left with?
With Redskins, I agree with Reilly but can see how some would object. The thing is, who are the people objecting?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 19, 2013, 04:48:56 PM
I don't see how anybody can think it'll be a good thing when homages (Warriors, Fighting Sioux, Braves, Chiefs, etc) to Native Americans disaapear. What image are we then left with?
With Redskins, I agree with Reilly but can see how some would object. The thing is, who are the people objecting?
BINGO
Been arguing that for years. Take enough of this stuff away from the vocabulary and inconography, you will have generations that have no idea some of these people even existed. Some of the very people that are supposed to be so outraged by this stuff (you know, Native Americans) have said essentially that. It's an honor and helps to keep their nation not only visible, but with an added relevancy. It's marketing, whether people want to admit it or not.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 19, 2013, 04:48:56 PM
I don't see how anybody can think it'll be a good thing when homages (Warriors, Fighting Sioux, Braves, Chiefs, etc) to Native Americans disaapear. What image are we then left with?
With Redskins, I agree with Reilly but can see how some would object. The thing is, who are the people objecting?
Agree with paragraph #1 completely.
Regarding paragraph #2, I grew up watching movies and TV shows where the guys in the white hats would use the term "redskin" regularly - never as an homage, often as an overtly racial slur.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 19, 2013, 11:07:18 PM
Agree with paragraph #1 completely.
Regarding paragraph #2, I grew up watching movies and TV shows where the guys in the white hats would use the term "redskin" regularly - never as an homage, often as an overtly racial slur.
I don't even know if I agree it's a slur. Redskin? I think it's the equivalent of calling somebody "black" or "white." Again, not sure i think it's appropriate for a team name, but I also don't think it's necessarily a slur. The word "slur" is thrown around way too much.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 20, 2013, 07:08:29 AM
I don't even know if I agree it's a slur. Redskin? I think it's the equivalent of calling somebody "black" or "white." Again, not sure i think it's appropriate for a team name, but I also don't think it's necessarily a slur. The word "slur" is thrown around way too much.
Change the name to the Washington Whiteguys.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 20, 2013, 07:17:32 AM
Change the name to the Washington Whiteguys.
The Washington Crackers brought to you by Nabisco Saltines.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 20, 2013, 07:08:29 AM
I don't even know if I agree it's a slur. Redskin? I think it's the equivalent of calling somebody "black" or "white." Again, not sure i think it's appropriate for a team name, but I also don't think it's necessarily a slur. The word "slur" is thrown around way too much.
More the equivalent non whites calling a Caucasian "whitey". Often used in the same context - kill whitey, round up those redskins, etc. Redskins meant brutal savage like whitey connotes evil.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 20, 2013, 07:08:29 AM
I don't even know if I agree it's a slur. Redskin? I think it's the equivalent of calling somebody "black" or "white." Again, not sure i think it's appropriate for a team name, but I also don't think it's necessarily a slur. The word "slur" is thrown around way too much.
Actually having grown up around Native American culture redskin is closer to calling a black person n****r than it is to calling him black. It is 100% a slur
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 20, 2013, 11:00:42 AM
Actually having grown up around Native American culture redskin is closer to calling a black person n****r than it is to calling him black. It is 100% a slur
According to the Wellpinit Schools superintendent (a school over 90% Native American): "'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride."
I can't imagine that being said if a school's nickname was the n-word.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 20, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
According to the Wellpinit Schools superintendent (a school over 90% Native American): "'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride."
I can't imagine that being said if a school's nickname was the n-word.
I said closer, not the same.
It is different when one native american calls another native american a redskin. If a white person calls a native american that...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 10:05:37 PM
BINGO
Been arguing that for years. Take enough of this stuff away from the vocabulary and inconography, you will have generations that have no idea some of these people even existed. Some of the very people that are supposed to be so outraged by this stuff (you know, Native Americans) have said essentially that. It's an honor and helps to keep their nation not only visible, but with an added relevancy. It's marketing, whether people want to admit it or not.
seriously...you're going to act like you care about native americans...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 19, 2013, 11:07:18 PM
Agree with paragraph #1 completely.
Regarding paragraph #2, I grew up watching movies and TV shows where the guys in the white hats would use the term "redskin" regularly - never as an homage, often as an overtly racial slur.
I'm alive today, and Native Americans often use Redskins as their own team name and overwhelmingly in polls show they have no issue with it.
But like Reilly said so well, they don't have to be outraged when others can be for them...by golly.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 20, 2013, 11:00:42 AM
Actually having grown up around Native American culture redskin is closer to calling a black person n****r than it is to calling him black. It is 100% a slur
And again, apparently the people you grew up with aren't answering these polls....91% said Redskins is acceptable. Go figure.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
Quote from: avid1010 on September 20, 2013, 01:46:46 PM
seriously...you're going to act like you care about native americans...
My brother-in-law, his kids...all "Native American" to some degree. My nephew and niece have used it to their advantage for college....good for them.
I care more about the absurdity of people from one ideology, but yes I also care about what the majority of Native Americans feel. They support it. Watching the outrage by people who do nothing but get outraged for the sake of outrage, is comical and delightful to me. Watching the press play outrage patsy and not call a team their name...boy, that will show them. It's hysterical.
In the meantime, I'm glad we have people out there that can be outraged for others, even if those they are outraged for do not feel outraged. It always works out so well. Pretty soon the outraged will tell those that should be outraged how dumb they are for not feeling outraged, or call them cool names like Uncle Tom or whatever else to get them to come over to their enlightened position on the outrage meter.
(http://www.dunckleystreet.com/images/outrage-ami150.gif)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 10:05:37 PM
BINGO
Been arguing that for years. Take enough of this stuff away from the vocabulary and inconography, you will have generations that have no idea some of these people even existed. Some of the very people that are supposed to be so outraged by this stuff (you know, Native Americans) have said essentially that. It's an honor and helps to keep their nation not only visible, but with an added relevancy. It's marketing, whether people want to admit it or not.
I agree with you that some of it is a bit ridiculous and an overreaction, but hopefully kids will still be taking history classes. I'm sure these generations will continue to learn about the trail of tears and the Pilgrims and Indians (Thanksgiving), etc. It's not like changing a sports team's name whips the history away.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 02:12:38 PM
My brother-in-law, his kids...all "Native American" to some degree. My nephew and niece have used it to their advantage for college....good for them.
I care more about the absurdity of people from one ideology, but yes I also care about what the majority of Native Americans feel. They support it. Watching the outrage by people who do nothing but get outraged for the sake of outrage, is comical and delightful to me. Watching the press play outrage patsy and not call a team their name...boy, that will show them. It's hysterical.
In the meantime, I'm glad we have people out there that can be outraged for others, even if those they are outraged for do not feel outraged. It always works out so well. Pretty soon the outraged will tell those that should be outraged how dumb they are for not feeling outraged, or call them cool names like Uncle Tom or whatever else to get them to come over to their enlightened position on the outrage meter.
(http://www.dunckleystreet.com/images/outrage-ami150.gif)
Go out to New Mexico/Arizona area, visit the Navajo reservation, and start calling people redskins. see what happens.
Quote from: swoopem on September 20, 2013, 02:28:39 PM
I agree with you that some of it is a bit ridiculous and an overreaction, but hopefully kids will still be taking history classes. I'm sure these generations will continue to learn about the trail of tears and the Pilgrims and Indians (Thanksgiving), etc. It's not like changing a sports team's name whips the history away.
Look at it this way, how many people in this country would truly know about the Seminoles without Florida State? Sure, people in Florida, Oklahoma and a few other states where the Seminole nation is around in numbers would know, but how many others? FSU using the Seminole name has helped the Seminole nation.
College or pro sports deliver name recognition. My goodness, most of America is aware of a bird called a Jayhawk (which doesn't even exist...it is fictional) because of this. Or a Tarheel. Or a Hoya. Or Fighting Sioux. You start pulling this stuff out of the common culture, it is tough to get back. With 43% of Americans unable to find New York on a map (the state, not the city) and 50% unable to locate Ohio, we have enough issues in the education system that doesn't give me a lot of hope that they will retain anything. Not that college or pro nicknames are the end all be all on this, but it does reach a group of people that may have zero interest in Red Cloud, Cochise, Geronimo, Tecumseh, Chickamauga, etc, but they might actually pause for a moment and ask what a Seminole is, the Sioux, Aztecs, etc.
I propose Marquette becomes the Mayans. The Marquette Mayans....of course the Mayans weren't around in the States, let alone Wisconsin, but I like the alliteration and maybe a few people in this country will say, "what's a Mayan" and look it up. ;D
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on September 20, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
Go out to New Mexico/Arizona area, visit the Navajo reservation, and start calling people redskins. see what happens.
How about I go to one of the highschools out there that uses the Redskins name and I wear a Redskins sweatshirt to cheer them on....wonder what would happen. I would scream, GO REDSKINS. Wonder what would happen. Hmm, yes I wonder.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 03:28:04 PM
Look at it this way, how many people in this country would truly know about the Seminoles without Florida State? Sure, people in Florida, Oklahoma and a few other states where the Seminole nation is around in numbers would know, but how many others? FSU using the Seminole name has helped the Seminole nation.
College or pro sports deliver name recognition. My goodness, most of America is aware of a bird called a Jayhawk (which doesn't even exist...it is fictional) because of this. Or a Tarheel. Or a Hoya. Or Fighting Sioux. You start pulling this stuff out of the common culture, it is tough to get back. With 43% of Americans unable to find New York on a map (the state, not the city) and 50% unable to locate Ohio, we have enough issues in the education system that doesn't give me a lot of hope that they will retain anything. Not that college or pro nicknames are the end all be all on this, but it does reach a group of people that may have zero interest in Red Cloud, Cochise, Geronimo, Tecumseh, Chickamauga, etc, but they might actually pause for a moment and ask what a Seminole is, the Sioux, Aztecs, etc.
I propose Marquette becomes the Mayans. The Marquette Mayans....of course the Mayans weren't around in the States, let alone Wisconsin, but I like the alliteration and maybe a few people in this country will say, "what's a Mayan" and look it up. ;D
I actually agree with you Chicos, when its a case like the Seminoles or Fighting Sioux and the tribe is on board and its done respectfully.
Redskins though? I think that's a bit different.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on September 20, 2013, 03:33:51 PM
I actually agree with you Chicos, when its a case like the Seminoles or Fighting Sioux and the tribe is on board and its done respectfully.
Redskins though? I think that's a bit different.
I get it, I get it. I still go back to the three polls. We're not talking 55% to 45%...we're talking 80%+, 90% plus acceptance.
How about Browns....how do you feel? Hard to believe, but there is a group of people that are pissed off about that name and plenty of others willing to be outraged for those that aren't outraged. Even though the team name comes from Paul Brown.
Marquette Mayans. Or Incas....I lived in Peru, so that one is special to me. Bet you 90% of Americans have no idea who the Incas were.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 03:42:31 PM
I get it, I get it. I still go back to the three polls. We're not talking 55% to 45%...we're talking 80%+, 90% plus acceptance.
How about Browns....how do you feel? Hard to believe, but there is a group of people that are pissed off about that name and plenty of others willing to be outraged for those that aren't outraged. Even though the team name comes from Paul Brown.
Marquette Mayans. Or Incas....I lived in Peru, so that one is special to me. Bet you 90% of Americans have no idea who the Incas were.
I feel fine. I'm not outraged. Its not my ethnic group. For me it just comes down to this. There are literally an infitnite number of nicknames out there you could come up with. Why pick one that could be offensive? If its about pride and respecting heritage and its done with the OK of a tribe, again, I'm cool with that.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on September 20, 2013, 03:33:51 PM
I actually agree with you Chicos, when its a case like the Seminoles or Fighting Sioux and the tribe is on board and its done respectfully.
Redskins though? I think that's a bit different.
The Seminoles being on board is a misconception. Seminole nation of Florida has approved the use of the tribe name and Chief Osceola. But Seminole Nations stretches all the way from Florida to Oklahoma. All the other tribes voted unanimously against the Florida State's use of the name.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 04:44:34 PM
Los Angeles...."City of Angels"....I'm sure there are people wildly offended ::) by the religious overtones. Need to change the name (the county already changed the logo to remove one religious symbol because 3 people were offended). But hey, we all need to be outraged, even if those that are supposed to be outraged (those people identified by other people...by the way), are not outraged. Its such a colossal joke sometimes, but a cottage industry for an entire ideology and a good portion of the press in this country.
Personally, I'm exhausted from all this faux outrage. Sad thing is, when something comes along that truly deserves some outrage, I'll have nothing left.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 03:42:31 PM
I get it, I get it. I still go back to the three polls. We're not talking 55% to 45%...we're talking 80%+, 90% plus acceptance.
How about Browns....how do you feel? Hard to believe, but there is a group of people that are pissed off about that name and plenty of others willing to be outraged for those that aren't outraged. Even though the team name comes from Paul Brown.
Marquette Mayans. Or Incas....I lived in Peru, so that one is special to me. Bet you 90% of Americans have no idea who the Incas were.
I appreciate you attempting to back up your opinion with data. But those polls aren't worth much in my opinion. One, data can be skewed one way are the other. Two, and more importantly, even if it is true that 91% of Native Americans are ok with white people calling them redskins, I would still fight against it for the sake of the 9%. I know that you will disagree with this, which is a completely valid and logical opinion. But I find it morally wrong to to use the the name of a race of people as a mascot for a sporting team. I think it is dehumanizing and devalues the culture of a group of human beings. The example I always go back to is that it would be inappropriate to name a team the Africans and wear blackface to all of the games. So why is it not inappropriate to be called the Redskins and wear war paint to the games?
Obviously, you do not agree that it is morally wrong. And I can understand and accept that. It is logical, utilitarian, and completely valid. I do believe that it is wrong on principle. And I doubt either of us could convince the other of anything different.
And Browns, yes I would like them to change their name.
Incas, I don't have as much of an issue with because they are considered to be a dead culture, similar to the Trojans and Spartans. And as sad as it is, I think you may be right about the 90% of Americans not knowing what an Inca is
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 02:12:38 PM
My brother-in-law, his kids...all "Native American" to some degree. My nephew and niece have used it to their advantage for college....good for them.
I care more about the absurdity of people from one ideology, but yes I also care about what the majority of Native Americans feel. They support it. Watching the outrage by people who do nothing but get outraged for the sake of outrage, is comical and delightful to me. Watching the press play outrage patsy and not call a team their name...boy, that will show them. It's hysterical.
In the meantime, I'm glad we have people out there that can be outraged for others, even if those they are outraged for do not feel outraged. It always works out so well. Pretty soon the outraged will tell those that should be outraged how dumb they are for not feeling outraged, or call them cool names like Uncle Tom or whatever else to get them to come over to their enlightened position on the outrage meter.
(http://www.dunckleystreet.com/images/outrage-ami150.gif)
i'm glad you're outraged, as i was outraged at your hoodie joke and a few other comments as well. that said, it's a message board, and things can easily be taken out of context.
As an American of Filipino descent, please feel free to name your sports teams after indigenous Filipino tribes.
That would be EPIC.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on September 20, 2013, 06:02:00 PM
As an American of Filipino descent, please feel free to name your sports teams after indigenous Filipino tribes.
That would be EPIC.
And jawbreaking ;D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 03:42:31 PM
I get it, I get it. I still go back to the three polls. We're not talking 55% to 45%...we're talking 80%+, 90% plus acceptance.
How about Browns....how do you feel? Hard to believe, but there is a group of people that are pissed off about that name and plenty of others willing to be outraged for those that aren't outraged. Even though the team name comes from Paul Brown.
Marquette Mayans. Or Incas....I lived in Peru, so that one is special to me. Bet you 90% of Americans have no idea who the Incas were.
if we run a poll on mu and 90% of the readers vote that tc is a prick will you stop your love affair with him?
Here's the poll I want to see:
Referring to Native Americans as "redskins" is:
A) An homage
B) No big deal - it's what they are
C) I thought redskins were peanuts
D) Offensive, possibly racist
Think 90% pick A or B? No way.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 20, 2013, 04:43:50 PM
The Seminoles being on board is a misconception. Seminole nation of Florida has approved the use of the tribe name and Chief Osceola. But Seminole Nations stretches all the way from Florida to Oklahoma. All the other tribes voted unanimously against the Florida State's use of the name.
Not exactly...or even remotely close ;)
The Seminole Tribe of Florida officially sanctions the use of the Seminole as Florida State University's nickname and of Osceola as FSU's symbol. Max Osceola, the chief and general council president of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, has stated that he regards it as an "honor" to be associated with the university.[106]
However, the Seminole Tribe of Florida is only one of the tribal authorities representing Seminoles. Activists
Michael Haney and David Narcomey, general council member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, objected to FSU's use of the Seminole symbol and name, and
acting independently of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, filed a complaint with the NCAA.[107] David Narcomey, speaking on his own behalf, stated "I am deeply appalled, incredulously disappointed ... I am nauseated that the NCAA is allowing this 'minstrel show' to carry on this form of racism in the 21st century." The NCAA, in response, placed FSU on a list of colleges using imagery "hostile or abusive" towards Native Americans.[108]
In response, Jennifer McBee, the Oklahoma Seminole tribe's attorney general, stated that while David Narcomey was a member of the Oklahoma Seminoles' General Council,
he did not speak for the 14,000-member Seminole Nation of Oklahoma when he protested to NCAA officials about FSU's use of the Seminole name and image.
McBee added that the NCAA never even asked the General Council for its opinion.[109] Attorney General McBee stated that, as of June 2005, the council had taken no official position on the FSU issue.[106] Despite the opinions expressed by Haney and Narcomey,
Ken Chambers, principal chief of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma told The Palm Beach (Florida) Post in August 2005 that
he had no objection to Florida State University using the Seminoles as a nickname and symbol, reversing the earlier public position of the Oklahoma tribe's spokesperson.[110] In July 2005, the Seminole Nation General Council,
the legislative body for the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, voted 18-2 not to oppose the use of Native American names and mascots by college sports teams.[109] ;D
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 20, 2013, 09:35:42 PM
Here's the poll I want to see:
Referring to Native Americans as "redskins" is:
A) An homage
B) No big deal - it's what they are
C) I thought redskins were peanuts
D) Offensive, possibly racist
Think 90% pick A or B? No way.
Why not just read the results of the polls. Really not that hard. Let me help you.
Sports Illustrated Poll
Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins," says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins."University of Pennsylvania Annenburg Poll of Native Americans
"The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?"
90% percent of took the position it was not offensive\didn't bother them, while 9 percent said they found the name "offensive" or bothersome. 1% did not answer"No Way
So, Chicos, how do YOU answer my poll?
What Chico's conveniently fails to mention is that both polls he's citing are about a decade old.
Times change (as much as some would wish we were forever stuck in the 50s).
Time for the lock.
Again. Sigh.
ZFB's motto, "more poles, less polls"
Not every Chicos post leads to a lock.
Yet, all locked posts come from a Chicos post.
Quote from: avid1010 on September 20, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
if we run a poll on mu and 90% of the readers vote that tc is a prick will you stop your love affair with him?
I've already said he is a prick...I'd be one of the 90%. Anything else?
Quote from: Pakuni on September 20, 2013, 11:44:38 PM
What Chico's conveniently fails to mention is that both polls he's citing are about a decade old.
Times change (as much as some would wish we were forever stuck in the 50s).
This is true (one poll is 9 years old, the other a bit older), but actually I didn't fail to mention it. I stated several times when the polls were done. http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=39760.msg515545#msg515545
Also, I believe Reilly referenced anecdotal evidence from this week, but you are right there have only been three polls that I can find on the subject that directly ask Native Americans. All three overwhelmingly (not even close) were ok with it. What's interesting, the newer polls (2004) were the highest in terms of being ok with the name...so at least trending at that point was that it wasn't offensive to the very people that are supposed to be offended (and if they aren't, there are folks that will be offended for them...by golly).
By the way, from 2013...NO WAY ;D...from Native Americans. http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/professional/football/redskins/article_26b0f8d8-eb22-52f0-87df-c05e24bbfc0e.html
"It doesn't bother me," said Robert Green, 66 and chief of the Patawomeck Tribe in Virginia. "About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn't offend them, either."
Kevin Brown, 58 and chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia, said, "I'm a Redskins fan, and I don't think there's any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory. The majority of the people in my tribe don't have a problem with it. There are a few who do, and we respect their feelings. "I like the uniforms. I like the symbol (logo)."
G. Anne Richardson, chief of Virginia's Rappahannock Tribe, had to stifle a laugh when asked her feelings on the Redskins' nickname.
"I don't have an issue with it," she said. "There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We're worried about real things, and I don't consider that a real thing.
"We're more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We've been in that survival mode for 400 years. We're not worried about how some ball team is named."
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 20, 2013, 11:16:57 PM
So, Chicos, how do YOU answer my poll?
I think your choices are lame....sort of like an election with a douche and a turd...I wouldn't vote for any of them.
It's a false choice you have presented, but good try. Besides, I'm just a white, male, my opinions don't matter any more....I'd prefer to hear from the folks that are supposed to be outraged, not from a bunch of other guys that aren't Native Americans (like you) that are offended for them.
It looks to me like Chief Dodson is voting A. NO WAY!
Chief Dodson: "'Redskin' isn't something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It's] used also as a term of respect, because that's how we were. We respected each other with that term."
"
People are speaking for Native Americans that aren't Native American. Being a full-blooded Indian with my whole family behind me, we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion]," he said. "
I think they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation.
We don't have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we're honored. We're quite honored."
"It is
[an honor], it's a heritage. There's a lot of
respect in it. A great pinnacle part of who we are as a nation has to do with pride and honor. And the
Redskin name is that," he said. "That's one of the things we use as honor and respect toward each other.
"[I am] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say," he said. "When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation.
Don't represent our nation if you don't even have an ounce of blood in you."Watch the video...by the way, Pakuni, this is 2013...a few months ago.
http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/native_american_indian_chief_says_he_is_honored_by_the_name_redskins/13546634
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on September 20, 2013, 11:57:17 PM
Time for the lock.
Again. Sigh.
Why? Good discussion, part of the mainstream discussion in America right now. People on both sides. What's to run away from?
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 21, 2013, 12:01:38 AM
ZFB's motto, "more poles, less polls"
I hope that's a stripper reference. ;D ?-(
Native American nicknames: honoring tribes or insulting?
Rick Reilly
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds
Summary: 'You think "Redskins & etc. is offensive, well here is another side to the argument.' Goodell said "if even one person is offended we need to listen" Well, some atheists are offended by Angels and Saints. Some people lost loved ones to Hurricanes, and so on. Reilly refuses to join other journalists who are apparently refusing to use "Redskins" when referring to the NFL franchise in an attempt to boycott the name
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 21, 2013, 12:25:08 AM
I think your choices are lame....sort of like an election with a douche and a turd...I wouldn't vote for any of them.
Fine. Make your own choice and fill in the blank: I think referring to Native Americans as "redskins" is --------
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 21, 2013, 09:53:41 PM
Fine. Make your own choice and fill in the blank: I think referring to Native Americans as "redskins" is --------
Is "Indian" a racial slur?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on September 21, 2013, 10:17:44 PM
Is "Indian" a racial slur?
No. Misnomer maybe. Slur no. I'm still not comfortable with redskins though
Quote from: Bleuteaux on September 21, 2013, 11:59:01 PM
No. Misnomer maybe. Slur no. I'm still not comfortable with redskins though
Fortunately most Native Americans are ok with it, so you don't have to worry about it. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 22, 2013, 01:35:41 AM
Fortunately most Native Americans are ok with it, so you don't have to worry about it. ;)
Throughout this whole thing you've thrown out a lot of numbers, and whether it's 57% or 91% that don't care, that means 43% or 9% that do. Isn't part of what our country is based on protecting the needs of minorities? Or does anything less than 50% not matter?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 22, 2013, 01:35:41 AM
Fortunately most Native Americans are ok with it, so you don't have to worry about it. ;)
According to a decade-old poll of a few hundred people who identify themselves over the phone as having some Native ancestry.
But when discussing old polls, you forgot this one conducted by an actual Native media outlet of confirmed Native Americans that found 81 percent of them believe such nicknames "are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans."
http://web.archive.org/web/20040301122612/http://www.indiancountry.com/?43
In all this discussion, Chico's, one thing you've never answered is whether or not
you accept that Redskins is a slur.
And, if you do, how do you justify - heck, how do you cheer on - its use as a team nickname?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 21, 2013, 09:53:41 PM
Fine. Make your own choice and fill in the blank: I think referring to Native Americans as "redskins" is --------
I think if you go through history, the term Redskins was a Native American term....a term THEY created. A term, that many Native Americans tie to an honor. I'd much rather THEY decide if it is offensive, rather than a bunch of people outraged for the sake of outrage.
Some Native Americans are offended by it. Many Native Americans are not. There have been three scientific polls, in all three Native Americans overwhelmingly were ok with it. Would opinions be different today than 9 years ago? Maybe, then again I've posted plenty of anecdotal information from current Native Americans that absolutely are 180 degrees from your opinion that the term is an insult, prejudiced, racial, or anything of the kind. Examples from 2013, not many years ago. Of course there will be examples the other way as well.
Clearly, it isn't the slam dunk you make it out it to, and far less than your claim that NO WAY anyone would vote it as an homage....I've given you examples directly from Native American leaders from just a few months ago.
ME....I think it's a nickname that the people of Washington, D.C. metro area are proud to call their team and represents a proud people, for which the nickname originated from with a Native American coach and Native American players on the team. And I think there are a bunch of people in this country that are outraged on anything they can dream up and it is their goal to continue to find the next thing to be outraged against. That's what I think.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 22, 2013, 05:32:48 PM
I think if you go through history, the term Redskins was a Native American term....a term THEY created.
Citation needed.
Everything I've seen is that Redskins was a term created by white settlers and the term almost from the outset was derogatory.
QuoteME....I think it's a nickname that the people of Washington, D.C. metro area are proud to call their team and represents a proud people, for which the nickname originated from with a Native American coach and Native American players on the team. And I think there are a bunch of people in this country that are outraged on anything they can dream up and it is their goal to continue to find the next thing to be outraged against. That's what I think.
You're ducking the question.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 22, 2013, 02:36:57 PM
Throughout this whole thing you've thrown out a lot of numbers, and whether it's 57% or 91% that don't care, that means 43% or 9% that do. Isn't part of what our country is based on protecting the needs of minorities? Or does anything less than 50% not matter?
Those were scientific polls OF Native Americans, not overall populace. Otherwise you would be arguing to protect the minority from within the minority...in other words, the minority viewpoints of the Native American community.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 22, 2013, 05:56:50 PM
Citation needed.
Everything I've seen is that Redskins was a term created by white settlers and the term almost from the outset was derogatory.
You're ducking the question.
Not ducking the question, I answered it. You may not like it, but not ducking it. As a poster said here a few days ago, they would like to see the name Browns go away...others have said the same thing. I lived in Cleveland for a number of years, both parents from there. It's named after Paul Brown. There is nothing racial about it. The Redskins, the name was a name of honor CREATED by Native Americans...a term of honor. Are we now going to get into a situation where if language changes down the road anything can become racial? What if someone starts using "Marquette" in the culture to depict something racial and it catches on. Does that mean it needs to be changed, too?
On the name, I linked a video a few days ago to one of the Native American chiefs that stated it was a term created by Native Americans for Native Americans. "Chief Dodson: "'Redskin' isn't something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It's] used also as a term of respect, because that's how we were. We respected each other with that term." http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/native_american_indian_chief_says_he_is_honored_by_the_name_redskins/13546634
But here is some additional info...
Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was
first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.
In fact, the earliest usages of "redskin" that Goddard tracked down were in
statements made in 1769 by Illinois tribal chiefs involved in delicate negotiations with the British to switch loyalties away from the French. "I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself," said one statement attributed to a chief named Mosquito. "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life." The French used the phrase " peaux Rouges " -- literally "red skins" -- to translate the chief's words.
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
Not surprisingly, certain people don't like what Mr. Goddard of the Smithsonian has to say, especially those that don't care for the name, particularly Suzan Shown Harjo, an activist that is against the name and sued to have the Redskins name removed from the NFL. Go figure.
here's the money quote from one author "Professor of Law and historian J. Gordon Hylton writes about the term, "...throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation." Even Sitting Bull once remarked, "I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place." Regardless, over the years,
the scalp-equals-redskin theory has gained traction as well-meaning people took Harjo's word on the matter as fact"
Some good stuff here
http://valhalla.law.und.nodak.edu/LawReview/issues/web_assets/pdf/86/86-4/86NDLR879.pdf
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 22, 2013, 06:23:38 PM
Those were scientific polls OF Native Americans, not overall populace. Otherwise you would be arguing to protect the minority from within the minority...in other words, the minority viewpoints of the Native American community.
my favorite is distinguishing polls based upon whether or not the native american lives on a reservation.
like i've said...it may be an over-correction, but i'd rather over correct than stand on the side of racists. i would argue that we should be focusing much less on team names, and much more on people, especially politicians, that get away with consistently pushing racist views/comments.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 22, 2013, 06:23:38 PM
Those were scientific polls OF Native Americans, not overall populace. Otherwise you would be arguing to protect the minority from within the minority...in other words, the minority viewpoints of the Native American community.
Obviously. But those opinions are the only ones that matter in this case. So if 30-40% think there's a problem, then there's probably a problem.
It doesn't affect me. I am not overly fussed one way or the other. But if Washington can change the name of their basketball team because it's offensive to shooting victims (or whoever) isn't it worth changing a team name for the sake of 30-40% of an affected population that feels it has a negative connotation?
Right now in another thread you are presenting a group of five (or more) Scoop posters as a significant group that felt Buzz should have no oversight. I agree with you that it is enough people to be considered significant. By that same token I'm surprised you feel a much larger percentage of Native Americans should be marginalized.
I read this article this morning and while it isn't directly involving team nicknames and such, I thought it was still somewhat relevant to this conversation. Particularly the paragraph below:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/opinion/cevallos-vanity-plates-free-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Being offended does not an offensive word make
As a society, we have fatally mixed up the concept of subjective versus objective when it comes to offensiveness. Because an individual is offended by a word, that word does not thereby become universally offensive.
Determining whether something is offensive must use an objective standard, which means society on the whole should concur that it is taboo. Too often when a single individual is offended, we make the illogical jump to conclude that the material offending one is now offensive to all.
Worse, we now deem material offensive not for its actual measured effect, but for its untested potential effect. No one was actually offended by Matwyuk's plate, likely not even the person who actually rejected it.
Rather, it was banned because the official imagined some potential offensiveness. In addition to confusing subjective versus objective in defining "offensive," we've placed government officials in the business of foreseeing the future, with an overly cautious eye.
One final time - I am in no way shape or form PC. It's stunning to me that there are people out there offended by the Cleveland Browns, brown bagging, Warriors, Braves, etc., etc., etc., but I'm equally amazed by those tone deaf enough to not see a problem with Redskin. I can hear them now - "If black people can use the N word and gays can use "cute one", why can't I? I mean, they don't seem to think it's derogatory." Common sense, people - please.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 22, 2013, 03:53:41 PM
According to a decade-old poll of a few hundred people who identify themselves over the phone as having some Native ancestry.
But when discussing old polls, you forgot this one conducted by an actual Native media outlet of confirmed Native Americans that found 81 percent of them believe such nicknames "are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans."
http://web.archive.org/web/20040301122612/http://www.indiancountry.com/?43
In all this discussion, Chico's, one thing you've never answered is whether or not you accept that Redskins is a slur.
And, if you do, how do you justify - heck, how do you cheer on - its use as a team nickname?
Your link doesn't work. I do like that you mentioned a "few hundred respondents"...uhm, yes, that is how polls are done. Every week major polling firms do these polls with similar numbers. Hell, we predict national elections based on 1,000 people. This is not new, the data is statstically significant so not sure what the number of respondents has to do with it unless the sample wasn't statistically significant, which it was.
I don't cheer on the Redskins....I was born in Texas (by the Grace of God) and worked Cowboys training camps through my youth as they practiced less than a mile from my childhood home. The idea of cheering for the Redskins revolts me, not because of the name, because they are the dreaded enemy. ;)
Do I accept that Redskins is a slur FOR SOME PEOPLE? Sure. Do I accept that some people think saying UNDER GOD in the Pledge of Allegiance is horrific? Sure. Do I accept that some people think Browns (Cleveland Browns) is offensive? Sure. There will always be people that are like this. Do I find it a slur considering I know how the term came about (by Native Americans), what its purpose was? Do I find it a slur for the football team, considering it was named by the coach (a Native American) and several of his players (Native Americans) to honor the original purpose of the term (a honorable designation of Native Americans BY Native Americans)....no. Now, if I was merely going to jump on the bandwagon, with no background of the name, no understanding who came up with, why it came up with...in other words, complete ignorance on it...then yes I could get there, but fortunately the research is there and not hard to find, even if the pushers of another theory don't want to call attention to it since it doesn't fit their agenda.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 23, 2013, 11:55:02 AM
One final time - I am in no way shape or form PC. It's stunning to me that there are people out there offended by the Cleveland Browns, brown bagging, Warriors, Braves, etc., etc., etc., but I'm equally amazed by those tone deaf enough to not see a problem with Redskin. I can hear them now - "If black people can use the N word and gays can use "cute one", why can't I? I mean, they don't seem to think it's derogatory." Common sense, people - please.
So you ignore the origins of the term, the words (TODAY) of many Native American leaders saying it is a term of honor. Do you not also understand there is COMMON SENSE with that conclusion, as well? NO WAY. Are they tone deaf?
And quite frankly, your example is ridiculous. If you were to ask African Americans if they would be ok with a team nickname of that word, the overwhelming response would be no. They have asked Native Americans if they are ok with the nickname Redskin, and the polls have shown overwhelming SUPPORT for it. So I don't know why you are trying to lump those two together. Apples and Oranges. Plus, did the term you are talking about (N word) EVER have a positive origination? It was a derogatory word from its inception...day one. Never a word of honor, prestige, etc. Again, Apples to Oranges.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 12:17:35 PMThey have asked Native Americans if they are ok with the nickname Redskin, and the polls have shown overwhelming SUPPORT for it.
I suppose it depends on your definition of the term "overwhelming", but let's look at the poll you have been citing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 11:09:34 PM
Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not
Okay, 75% is a decent amount, but that means 25%, or 1 in 4,
were offended. I would consider 25% to be a statistically significant portion of the population.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 11:09:34 PMand even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended.
In a presidential election, 62% is overwhelming because of ingrained voters. But if you're going to act like 38%, more than a third of the on-res population, isn't a very hefty portion of the minority, I don't know what math you are using. When it comes down to who you are offending, 62% is not even remotely overwhelming.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 20, 2013, 11:09:34 PMOverall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name.
Roughly a third don't feel it's okay, and 43% of those on reservations do not support the use of the name. Again, you must not understand the meaning of the word overwhelming. Nearly half of the on-res Native Americans feel it is not OK that the Redskins name continue to be used, yet you say there is overwhelming support. The poll you yourself posted disproves your most recent post.
Again, you consider 5 posters on Scoop to be a significant enough portion of the population of probably at least 500 active posters, yet you don't consider 43% of the Native American population to be significant enough to listen to? The two viewpoints you take in this thread and the other simply cannot be reconciled.
Here's Wikipedia on the subject: "Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by SOME accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive", "diparaging", "insulting" and "taboo" and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.
Chicos, you're usually a big fan of the dictionary - how is something that's usually offensive, disparaging, insulting, taboo and avoided in public usage not a slur. Common sense and common decency seem to have spoken on the matter.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 23, 2013, 02:29:29 PM
I suppose it depends on your definition of the term "overwhelming", but let's look at the poll you have been citing.
Okay, 75% is a decent amount, but that means 25%, or 1 in 4, were offended. I would consider 25% to be a statistically significant portion of the population.
What is the cutoff...10%? 25%? 45%? No one is saying there isn't a valid number that are against it, but 90% in one poll, 75% in another are ok with the name...those are huge numbers from the very people that are supposed to totally offended by this. With the amount of venom that some are spewing on this and how unconscionable it is supposed to be, wouldn't you think the group that is supposedly targeted would get at least 50%? Hell, I would expect that group to have 75% against it. Not 25% and 10%.
Apply it to your life. If the next firefighter union vote comes out and 90% of the membership is for it and 10% are against, what is that considered? Or 75% to 25%? Are you not going to approve a contract because 25% didn't ratify it? I'm sorry, but 1 in 4 that are offended....yeah, it happens. You mentioned presidential elections...we have presidents getting 53% of the vote and claiming mandates. What is 75% or 90%, then?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 23, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
Here's Wikipedia on the subject: "Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by SOME accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive", "diparaging", "insulting" and "taboo" and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.
Chicos, you're usually a big fan of the dictionary - how is something that's usually offensive, disparaging, insulting, taboo and avoided in public usage not a slur. Common sense and common decency seem to have spoken on the matter.
Wikipedia...LOL.
I gave you direct lineage to the name (Smithsonian Institute), examples from Native Americans, etc....clearly the person writing your definition above is exactly what Reilly was talking about. Someone offended for someone that isn't offended. Maybe next time they should have Native Americans write the definition.
I guess you continue to ignore what the majority of Native Americans think....you must think you are superior to them and that they are incapable of deciding how to feel, but you will gladly do it for them. There are many like that on this topic, but by golly you can answer for them and show them how offended they should be.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 05:18:25 PM
What is the cutoff...10%? 25%? 45%? No one is saying there isn't a valid number that are against it, but 90% in one poll, 75% in another are ok with the name...those are huge numbers from the very people that are supposed to totally offended by this. With the amount of venom that some are spewing on this and how unconscionable it is supposed to be, wouldn't you think the group that is supposedly targeted would get at least 50%? Hell, I would expect that group to have 75% against it. Not 25% and 10%.
Apply it to your life. If the next firefighter union vote comes out and 90% of the membership is for it and 10% are against, what is that considered? Or 75% to 25%? Are you not going to approve a contract because 25% didn't ratify it? I'm sorry, but 1 in 4 that are offended....yeah, it happens. You mentioned presidential elections...we have presidents getting 53% of the vote and claiming mandates. What is 75% or 90%, then?
Just to play devil's advocate, eventually, "Redskins" will be considered offensive by 51% of people.
Are that point, are you going to advocate that the name be changed? Is there a magic number in your mind?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 05:18:25 PM
What is the cutoff...10%? 25%? 45%? No one is saying there isn't a valid number that are against it, but 90% in one poll, 75% in another are ok with the name...those are huge numbers from the very people that are supposed to totally offended by this. With the amount of venom that some are spewing on this and how unconscionable it is supposed to be, wouldn't you think the group that is supposedly targeted would get at least 50%? Hell, I would expect that group to have 75% against it. Not 25% and 10%.
Apply it to your life. If the next firefighter union vote comes out and 90% of the membership is for it and 10% are against, what is that considered? Or 75% to 25%? Are you not going to approve a contract because 25% didn't ratify it? I'm sorry, but 1 in 4 that are offended....yeah, it happens. You mentioned presidential elections...we have presidents getting 53% of the vote and claiming mandates. What is 75% or 90%, then?
You're still ignoring my point that you are claiming 1% of Scoop seems to be statistically significant in the Pilarz thread but here 43% is not.
Second, your example really doesn't apply, but we aren't talking about a majority rule, we're talking about use of a term offending enough people to justify it not be used.
If you want to apply it to our lives, let's say a family of 5 with 2 sons and 1 daughter has only female dogs. The father and sons decide to start calling the dogs bitches. After all, like Redskins, it's an accurate term, right? So if the 60% majority of the family feels the term bitches should be used by the family on a daily basis, should we ignore the feelings of the wife and daughter if they feel offended? After all, they are in the minority, so why should them taking offense matter?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 05:24:19 PM
Wikipedia...LOL.
Webster's definition in 2013 (noun) USUALLY offensive - American Indian LOL
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 23, 2013, 05:25:36 PM
Just to play devil's advocate, eventually, "Redskins" will be considered offensive by 51% of people.
Are that point, are you going to advocate that the name be changed? Is there a magic number in your mind?
Yes, I think eventually there will be enough sheeple that can't think for themselves and will get there or will be convinced that they need to be offended...cave into pressure. It's worked so well with others. Imagine being called an Uncle Tom if you don't think a certain way...eventually you start to conform.....love peer pressure, ain't it great.
I don't have a number, I prefer to let a PRIVATE entity in a PRIVATE league doing PRIVATE business sell their product to their customers. Those customers, currently want the name. The people the name represents, also have shown support for the name. When it changes, will be up to that private entity to decide. Then we can move on to the next outrage...hoping its the Browns, followed by the Patriots...I mean, Patriots rings hollow with certain groups in this country who thing we are overly patriotic as it is. Has to go. So I hope they are mounting their campaigns. Los Angeles Angels, clearly on the list because atheists have got to be having their eyeballs bleed every time Sports Center comes on and gives an Angels score. That should be followed by the Warriors for obvious reasons...the anti War crowd is offended. Of course the Blackhawks (yes, I know why they are called this...doesn't matter, someone is outraged somewhere), etc. Any nickname that represents any human being (the DiUlio doctrine) should not be far behind....it's beneath us as human beings...by golly....and by golly I'm outraged by it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 23, 2013, 06:37:50 PM
You're still ignoring my point that you are claiming 1% of Scoop seems to be statistically significant in the Pilarz thread but here 43% is not.
Second, your example really doesn't apply, but we aren't talking about a majority rule, we're talking about use of a term offending enough people to justify it not be used.
If you want to apply it to our lives, let's say a family of 5 with 2 sons and 1 daughter has only female dogs. The father and sons decide to start calling the dogs bitches. After all, like Redskins, it's an accurate term, right? So if the 60% majority of the family feels the term bitches should be used by the family on a daily basis, should we ignore the feelings of the wife and daughter if they feel offended? After all, they are in the minority, so why should them taking offense matter?
Where have I said 1% of Scoop is statistically significant?
Second, and I ask...what is the cutoff? If it only takes ONE person to be offended by something, is that the rule? What's the cutoff...1 person, 1%, 4%, etc? It sounds like you are saying all it takes is one. Talk about the tyrany of the minority.
Your example still doesn't make sense. They have polled ONLY Native Americans and in one poll 75% support it and in the other 90% and in the other I believe the number was over 80%. If your example was truly apples to apples, you would ask only women and you would survey a statistically signficant sample of ONLY women, just as those polls asked ONLY Native Americans. The fact is, when they asked only Native Americans, they didn't object, not even close to objecting. I would expect the women would object, and thus the term would not be used. This is NOT what happened with Native Americans, not by a long shot.
So back to the question.....what's the minority of a minority that matters? What's the cutoff? How many people have to be offended. >1 ?
I object to Golden Eagles...so do a large percentage of other MU alumni. Should we change it?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 23, 2013, 07:32:55 PM
Webster's definition in 2013 (noun) USUALLY offensive - American Indian LOL
Don't you find it interesting that Websters doesn't include the definition that Native Americans have said about it being an honorable term? I wonder why that is? I wonder why they have ignored the definition from the very people that CREATED the term. Interesting. Hmm...
Everyone is so tough from behind their keyboard at home. Best way to solve this: Would you be comfortable calling a Native American a "Redskin" to their face? Shouldn't be any problem ... so many of them find it a term of endearment.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 10:17:20 PM
Yes, I think eventually there will be enough sheeple that can't think for themselves and will get there or will be convinced that they need to be offended...cave into pressure. It's worked so well with others. Imagine being called an Uncle Tom if you don't think a certain way...eventually you start to conform.....love peer pressure, ain't it great.
LOL. Someone who doesn't even know the dictionary meaning of "redskin" lecturing and name calling people who do. Words mean something. Nowhere in any dictionary I can find is redskin an homage, only an insult. I know you would rather it be 1913 or 1813, but it's 2013. Deal with it.
Chicos--
In the Pilarz thread you discussed the portion of Scoop that called for no oversight and used 5 posters as the example. I never referred to that specifically as statistically significant.
I also like how you now ignore the poll you posted. The only numbers you use are 90 and 75, ignoring the numbers in the 50s and 60s from that same 75% thread.
I don't know where the cutoff is. I don't care. But I think 25% being offended is pretty high, and the 43% from the same poll that you posted (yet now conveniently ignore) is really damn high.
Let's go with DienerTime's plan. From now on, why don't you call all NAs you meet "redskin"? Go to Potowatomi and say "what's up, redskin?" to all the Native Americans there. If the overwhelming majority is fine with it, then I imagine you're good with using it in daily conversation.
Surprised this thread made it so long, and was not moved to the SuperBar or locked.
Been thoroughly discussed.
In before the lock.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 10:17:20 PM
Yes, I think eventually there will be enough sheeple that can't think for themselves and will get there or will be convinced that they need to be offended...cave into pressure. It's worked so well with others. Imagine being called an Uncle Tom if you don't think a certain way...eventually you start to conform.....love peer pressure, ain't it great.
I don't have a number, I prefer to let a PRIVATE entity in a PRIVATE league doing PRIVATE business sell their product to their customers. Those customers, currently want the name. The people the name represents, also have shown support for the name. When it changes, will be up to that private entity to decide. Then we can move on to the next outrage...hoping its the Browns, followed by the Patriots...I mean, Patriots rings hollow with certain groups in this country who thing we are overly patriotic as it is. Has to go. So I hope they are mounting their campaigns. Los Angeles Angels, clearly on the list because atheists have got to be having their eyeballs bleed every time Sports Center comes on and gives an Angels score. That should be followed by the Warriors for obvious reasons...the anti War crowd is offended. Of course the Blackhawks (yes, I know why they are called this...doesn't matter, someone is outraged somewhere), etc. Any nickname that represents any human being (the DiUlio doctrine) should not be far behind....it's beneath us as human beings...by golly....and by golly I'm outraged by it.
I actually think you make a good point with the statistics, but it cuts both ways. You can't use the polls to defend the name, and then forget the polls and write off the "sheeple" if/when enough people don't like the name.
That's just logic, right?
In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.
"Indian mascots, by today's standards, would be offensive to any other race if portrayed in a similar manner," wrote Fred Blue Fox, Sicangu Lakota. "Indian peoples are no different in regarding the depiction of eagle feathers, face paints and war objects such as tomahawks. These are all sacred to the people and therefore have no place in any sort of public display, let alone mascots."
Only 10 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian mascots is a respectful gesture and predominantly honors Natives. Nine percent of respondents did not know if American Indian mascots either honored or offended Natives.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807
Quote from: Pakuni on September 24, 2013, 10:45:59 AM
In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.
"Indian mascots, by today's standards, would be offensive to any other race if portrayed in a similar manner," wrote Fred Blue Fox, Sicangu Lakota. "Indian peoples are no different in regarding the depiction of eagle feathers, face paints and war objects such as tomahawks. These are all sacred to the people and therefore have no place in any sort of public display, let alone mascots."
Only 10 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian mascots is a respectful gesture and predominantly honors Natives. Nine percent of respondents did not know if American Indian mascots either honored or offended Natives.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807
but, but, but, but, Chicos said it was ok
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 24, 2013, 08:44:00 AM
I actually think you make a good point with the statistics, but it cuts both ways. You can't use the polls to defend the name, and then forget the polls and write off the "sheeple" if/when enough people don't like the name.
That's just logic, right?
The polls that agree with me are valid indicators of public opinion and ought to be heeded.
The polls that disagree with me are proof that people are stupid.
Duh.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 24, 2013, 10:56:51 AM
The polls that agree with me are valid indicators of public opinion and ought to be heeded.
The polls that disagree with me are proof that people are stupid.
Duh.
LOL. Perfectly stated. If polls agree with him, they prove he's right. If polls disagree with him, they prove he's right. Interesting universe he inhabits.
Thought you guys might be interested in this. WOW. That would be 99.999999166% of the vote (I know, I know...these are shareholder votes which are often done with proxy voting blocks, but thought it was interesting)
FedEx To Stick With Redskins' Venue Naming-Rights Deal Amid Nickname Strife
Published September 24, 2013
FedEx shareholders overwhelmingly backed continuing support of the Redskins
FedEx shareholders yesterday "crushed a proposal to revisit company ties" to the Redskins and the naming rights for the team's Landover, Md., stadium, according to Wayne Risher of the Memphis COMMERCIAL APPEAL. Wisconsin's Oneida Tribe during an annual meeting at FedEx' Memphis HQs "made one of several unsuccessful attempts by shareholders to influence how the company does business." The proposal to revisit naming rights for FedExField was "made from the floor by Susan S. White, director of the Oneida Trust, and was defeated 253 million to 221." The proposal called on the FedEx BOD to "initiate a review of continued business relationships with the franchise and the potential impact of ending the relationships." FedEx Managing Dir of Global Media Relations & Events Glen Brandow in a statement said, "We believe that our sponsorship of FedEx Field continues to be in the best interest of FedEx and its stockholders" (Memphis COMMERCIAL APPEAL, 9/24).
Quote from: DienerTime34 on September 23, 2013, 10:32:47 PM
Everyone is so tough from behind their keyboard at home. Best way to solve this: Would you be comfortable calling a Native American a "Redskin" to their face? Shouldn't be any problem ... so many of them find it a term of endearment.
Every time I read these things I get the idea that a lot of you just feel you are a lot smarter than these Native Americans. Like they don't really understand how offended they should be, but you're picking up the slack and carrying the torch. How else to explain that so many Native Americans have no issue with the name, but so many of you do. You must not value their opinions or think their opinions are dumb, it's the only thing I can think of. Maybe they just haven't come around yet, but you guys will convince them what is right. Otherwise, why are you ignoring their opinions on this...the majority opinions of Native Americans? Are their opinions less important? 3/5 of your opinions?
I'm not trying to be cute, I'm asking a serious question of why you and others here think so many Native Americans support the name. Not by slim margins, by huge margins. Why do you think that is? Fair question?
Your example is really kind of silly. I would call anyone what they want to be called....usually their first name or nick name. No different than I would go to my Irish friends and say "hey Fighting Irish dude", yet I'm just fine with that team name as are most Irish....should they be offended and reeducated on this matter?
Chicos, I give up. If you want to ignore the polls you posted, I guess that's your prerogative. If you feel 40% isn't statistically significant, so be it. You seemed to want to use polls to create a straw man, then when he wasn't that strong, burned him down. I don't care what the nickname is, but if 25+% feel it's offensive, that's enough to justify a change, in my mind. You think the 75% render their feelings inconsequential. Hate to be a minority in a world you ruled.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 24, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
Thought you guys might be interested in this. WOW. That would be 99.999999166% of the vote (I know, I know...these are shareholder votes which are often done with proxy voting blocks, but thought it was interesting)
FedEx To Stick With Redskins' Venue Naming-Rights Deal Amid Nickname Strife
Published September 24, 2013
FedEx shareholders overwhelmingly backed continuing support of the Redskins
FedEx shareholders yesterday "crushed a proposal to revisit company ties" to the Redskins and the naming rights for the team's Landover, Md., stadium, according to Wayne Risher of the Memphis COMMERCIAL APPEAL. Wisconsin's Oneida Tribe during an annual meeting at FedEx' Memphis HQs "made one of several unsuccessful attempts by shareholders to influence how the company does business." The proposal to revisit naming rights for FedExField was "made from the floor by Susan S. White, director of the Oneida Trust, and was defeated 253 million to 221." The proposal called on the FedEx BOD to "initiate a review of continued business relationships with the franchise and the potential impact of ending the relationships." FedEx Managing Dir of Global Media Relations & Events Glen Brandow in a statement said, "We believe that our sponsorship of FedEx Field continues to be in the best interest of FedEx and its stockholders" (Memphis COMMERCIAL APPEAL, 9/24).
Alight, forgive me if I'm being dense, but what does this have to do with anything?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 24, 2013, 12:36:59 PM
Your example is really kind of silly. I would call anyone what they want to be called....usually their first name or nick name. No different than I would go to my Irish friends and say "hey Fighting Irish dude", yet I'm just fine with that team name as are most Irish....should they be offended and reeducated on this matter?
No, this is what's silly. The "Fighting" part of the nickname connotes effort on the playing field. No Irish man or women I know would be anything but honored if someone said "Hey Irish, what's up?" If you honestly think you'd get an almost universally positive response by saying "What's up, Redskin?" to a Native American you are seriously mistaken. You cannot possibly be this obtuse.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 24, 2013, 01:30:28 PM
No, this is what's silly. The "Fighting" part of the nickname connotes effort on the playing field. No Irish man or women I know would be anything but honored if someone said "Hey Irish, what's up?" If you honestly think you'd get an almost universally positive response by saying "What's up, Redskin?" to a Native American you are seriously mistaken. You cannot possibly be this obtuse.
Or does "Fighting" connote the stereotype of drunken, violent Irishmen? :)
Personally, I think that the Redskins are Daniel Snyder's team and, regardless of how much of an idiot he appears to be, it's his decision whether or not to change the nickname.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 24, 2013, 01:39:13 PM
Or does "Fighting" connote the stereotype of drunken, violent Irishmen? :)
Only to an extremely sensitive PCer.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 24, 2013, 01:30:28 PM
No, this is what's silly. The "Fighting" part of the nickname connotes effort on the playing field. No Irish man or women I know would be anything but honored if someone said "Hey Irish, what's up?" If you honestly think you'd get an almost universally positive response by saying "What's up, Redskin?" to a Native American you are seriously mistaken. You cannot possibly be this obtuse.
Well....
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on September 24, 2013, 01:39:13 PM
Personally, I think that the Redskins are Daniel Snyder's team and, regardless of how much of an idiot he appears to be, it's his decision whether or not to change the nickname.
Totally agree. It's nobody's job to tell a person how to run his or her business. I think Roger Goodell should butt out - but that's another discussion altogether.
Cool post on what a golden eagle can do to wildlife....not a fan of the nickname, but this was awesome-
http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-eagle-attacks-a-sika-deer-2013-9 (http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-eagle-attacks-a-sika-deer-2013-9)
//
Quote from: Pakuni on September 24, 2013, 10:45:59 AM
In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.
"Indian mascots, by today's standards, would be offensive to any other race if portrayed in a similar manner," wrote Fred Blue Fox, Sicangu Lakota. "Indian peoples are no different in regarding the depiction of eagle feathers, face paints and war objects such as tomahawks. These are all sacred to the people and therefore have no place in any sort of public display, let alone mascots."
Only 10 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian mascots is a respectful gesture and predominantly honors Natives. Nine percent of respondents did not know if American Indian mascots either honored or offended Natives.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807
LOL. So you get on me for a 2004 poll, then post a 2001 poll?
Would have been nice for them to post the internals, respondents, etc to prove out that it was a scientific poll.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 24, 2013, 10:56:51 AM
The polls that agree with me are valid indicators of public opinion and ought to be heeded.
The polls that disagree with me are proof that people are stupid.
Duh.
Not really...I'm all for advocating for this poll. Simple question, was it scientific...is it valid? The others I posted were. Are these? Seems a fair question...don't you think?
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 23, 2013, 11:16:56 PM
Chicos--
In the Pilarz thread you discussed the portion of Scoop that called for no oversight and used 5 posters as the example. I never referred to that specifically as statistically significant.
I also like how you now ignore the poll you posted. The only numbers you use are 90 and 75, ignoring the numbers in the 50s and 60s from that same 75% thread.
I don't know where the cutoff is. I don't care. But I think 25% being offended is pretty high, and the 43% from the same poll that you posted (yet now conveniently ignore) is really damn high.
Let's go with DienerTime's plan. From now on, why don't you call all NAs you meet "redskin"? Go to Potowatomi and say "what's up, redskin?" to all the Native Americans there. If the overwhelming majority is fine with it, then I imagine you're good with using it in daily conversation.
I'm not ignoring them at all. Those were just subsets of the internals...the overall numbers were exactly how I stated, 90% and 75%. The internals just break it down further, doesn't change the overall number. If 55% of the voters voted for Obama, but only 38% of males, does that change that overall he got 55%? Not at all. The 38% is just the internals that go into making up the 55% (he might have got 88% of females to bring the overall avg up). So I'm not ignoring them at all, they are just a subgroup of the overall number.
Polling 101.
You can go to Potowatomi and do that all you want. The question was about whether a team should be called the Redskins, and on that the people have answered overwhelmingly they are ok with it. Not even close. Pakuni, to his credit, found another poll that says something different, of course we know nothing about the poll and it's even older than the two I posted (for which he had a great deal of an issue with the age of my polls....LOL).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 24, 2013, 02:05:13 PM
Totally agree. It's nobody's job to tell a person how to run his or her business. I think Roger Goodell should butt out - but that's another discussion altogether.
It's very much part of the discussion, and one of the reasons I gave the other day. Private league, private team, he can do what he wants. If there is so much outrage over the name, then people can stop buying jerseys, sweatshirts, hats, tickets, etc...money talks and Snyder would change the name.
Thing is, people don't want to change it (Native Americans and non Native Americans), just as Native Americans have Redskins as their own team names at various High Schools and youth programs around this country....
cuz you know, they like to offend themselves or something (so says Pakuni's poll). If they wanted to change it, there would be a noticeable decrease in sales, etc. Instead they have the 2nd longest waiting list in the NFL, 3rd most valuable franchise, #1 jersey in the NFL, etc.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 24, 2013, 01:13:18 PM
Alight, forgive me if I'm being dense, but what does this have to do with anything?
We've been talking about the Redskins name, and related to the name was a shareholders meeting for Fed Ex whether to pull their sponsorship of the team because of the name.
Hoping for a Braves vs Indians World Series so the poutragers can get really ginned up.
5 consecutive posts?
Take a break from the internet.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 26, 2013, 09:26:00 AM
We've been talking about the Redskins name, and related to the name was a shareholders meeting for Fed Ex whether to pull their sponsorship of the team because of the name.
Hoping for a Braves vs Indians World Series so the poutragers can get really ginned up.
Sigh .... you continue to refuse to recognize the huge difference between Redskins and other names.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2013, 10:30:16 PM
Don't you find it interesting that Websters doesn't include the definition that Native Americans have said about it being an honorable term? I wonder why that is? I wonder why they have ignored the definition from the very people that CREATED the term. Interesting. Hmm...
Webster's dictionary is pretty inclusive regarding definitions. You sometimes base entire arguments around a fourth or fifth definition that is either rarely used or archaic. Write them a letter. Maybe they'll include YOUR definition:
Redskin: (noun) term invented by and loved by Native Americans to describe themselves - an homage. LOL
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 26, 2013, 01:15:58 AM
It's very much part of the discussion, and one of the reasons I gave the other day. Private league, private team, he can do what he wants. If there is so much outrage over the name, then people can stop buying jerseys, sweatshirts, hats, tickets, etc...money talks and Snyder would change the name.
Again, I don't want Snyder to be forced to change a name defined as offensive and in common conversation offensive. If he wants to call his team the Greaseballs, the Wops, the Hebes (short for Hebrews, so not offensive, right?) that's his business.
I just think it's wrong.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 26, 2013, 09:26:00 AM
We've been talking about the Redskins name, and related to the name was a shareholders meeting for Fed Ex whether to pull their sponsorship of the team because of the name.
Hoping for a Braves vs Indians World Series so the poutragers can get really ginned up.
Honestly, you're all over the map on this topic.
You have twisted, turned, squirmed and tied yourself into knots on this issue, and I'm not exactly sure why.
Cut down on the political rhetoric. Language and culture evolve over time. It's not always a liberal or progressive conspiracy. Not everything needs to be treated as such.
Snyder will run his PRIVATE organization however he wants. BUT, that doesn't mean people have to "like" the name.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 09:33:58 AM
Sigh .... you continue to refuse to recognize the huge difference between Redskins and other names.
Quite to the contrary. I realize there is a difference, but there is outrage over
all those names. Let me direct you to a poll by a Mr. Pakuni that says so. LOL
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 26, 2013, 10:10:43 AM
Honestly, you're all over the map on this topic.
You have twisted, turned, squirmed and tied yourself into knots on this issue, and I'm not exactly sure why.
Cut down on the political rhetoric. Language and culture evolve over time. It's not always a liberal or progressive conspiracy. Not everything needs to be treated as such.
Snyder will run his PRIVATE organization however he wants. BUT, that doesn't mean people have to "like" the name.
Because he's an oppressed well-to-do white christian male...duh!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 26, 2013, 10:17:04 AM
Quite to the contrary. I realize there is a difference, but there is outrage over all those names. Let me direct you to a poll by a Mr. Pakuni that says so. LOL
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807
So, we should get rid of all those names because these decisions must be made on the basis of polls. So says a Mr. Chico's.
You're feebly trying to link the legitimate and widespread complaints over the use of a slur (Redskins) with fringe complaints about far less offensive terms (Braves, Browns) in an attempt to delegitimize all of them as a bunch of lunatics rather than just take on the issue at hand.
FWIW ... your (disputed) source about the word's etymology makes the term no less of a slur. Plenty of contemporary ethnic slurs initially were created by the targeted group and/or have non-derogatory origins. The "N" word is one example of the latter. Or a certain 'K' word that refers to Jews.
That fact makes them no less offensive and derogatory in 2013.
Again, as others have asked, if you truly believe the word is not offensive, but rather a source of pride, would you be comfortable approaching a Native American and addressing him/her as "redskin?" Yes or no?
Offended by everything? Get a life
Not offended by anything? Get a clue.
I lean Chico's way in the PC discussion. People take too much offense at the innocuous. But when you try to make the truly offensive innocuous (or worse yet, call it an homage) you're just as unreasonable as the kooks in Seattle offended by "brown bagging".
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 26, 2013, 11:19:48 AM
Offended by everything? Get a life
Another one...
This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero." He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc. He had the "outrage meter" pegged.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 26, 2013, 11:28:47 AM
Another one...
This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero." He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc. He had the "outrage meter" pegged.
He's right, though. You can't be a hero until you've killed at least 5 people.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 26, 2013, 11:28:47 AM
Another one...
This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero." He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc. He had the "outrage meter" pegged.
I do find the use of the word "hero" be interesting. While it does meet the dictionary definition and has been regularly used to describe sports stars in the past, its use in the vernacular since 9/11 has narrowed its definition to include mostly the police, etc. that the caller mentioned.
I would have used "legend" instead.
But the larger point is correct. I can't really get offended by that.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 26, 2013, 12:10:17 PM
I do find the use of the word "hero" be interesting. While it does meet the dictionary definition and has been regularly used to describe sports stars in the past, its use in the vernacular since 9/11 has narrowed its definition to include mostly the police, etc. that the caller mentioned.
I would have used "legend" instead.
But the larger point is correct. I can't really get offended by that.
I know where you're coming from, and like you, I can't get offended. He kept saying, "to me, a hero is..." OK, fine. To
you, that's a hero. But spare the offense if to someone else, it means something else.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
You're feebly trying to link the legitimate and widespread complaints over the use of a slur (Redskins) with fringe complaints about far less offensive terms (Braves, Browns) in an attempt to delegitimize all of them as a bunch of lunatics rather than just take on the issue at hand.
This.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 26, 2013, 11:28:47 AM
Another one...
This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero." He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc. He had the "outrage meter" pegged.
As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes. There are some with an inflated sense of self, as there are in all professions. It has been my experience that the ones who have to tell you how great they are......aren't. But referring to a later post, I think 'legend' more aptly captures the essence of Mariano Rivera.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 26, 2013, 10:10:43 AM
Honestly, you're all over the map on this topic.
You have twisted, turned, squirmed and tied yourself into knots on this issue, and I'm not exactly sure why.
Cut down on the political rhetoric. Language and culture evolve over time. It's not always a liberal or progressive conspiracy. Not everything needs to be treated as such.
Snyder will run his PRIVATE organization however he wants. BUT, that doesn't mean people have to "like" the name.
Show me how I have tied myself in knots on this. Been consistent since day one. Or where I have made this about any conspiracy? If anything, you guys have tied yourselves in knots.
To summarize, Native Americans that are ok with Redskins as a name are just wrong or don't get it, and should be ignored despite polling showing support because we (the outraged) are right and we are going to be outraged for them in their absence....that is, of course, not the case for the Native Americans that answered they are outraged in a poll about Redskins as a name (be it the minority in three scientific polls or one that we're not sure of)...they are enlightened and their answers count....HOWEVER, those same good and smart Native Americans that are outraged over Redskins are also wrong when it comes to Braves, Indians, and symbols because they are just overdoing it on the PC side and they just need to calm down because, well...it's different.
This is awesome
-----
On the other hand, I haven't tied anything into knots...been pretty straight forward:
Native Americans aren't nearly as outraged as the few non Native Americans that want to bubble this up and are inheritently outraged over just about everything anyway. Said that from day one. CHECK
I've provided backup in polling data,
actual scientific polling data from Native Americans to prove my point. Someone else came up with a different poll, which we don't know if it is scientific at all, that is even older than what I had posted. That same poll, also mentions the supposed angst against other names, symbols, etc, as well, but that we should ignore (cuz it's not the same :P ). CHECK
We have some totally misinterpreting polls to begin with. In one example, the complaint was not enough participants, even though it was a statistically significant sample and done by polling firms all the time. In another example, someone is using a subset of internals to claim that is the level of folks against the nickname (this is like saying a politician won 55% of the vote, but lost lefthanders 60% to 40% and thus that 60% holds more weight than what the nation voted as a whole.) At the end of the day, 90% of Native Americans said they had no problem with it, in another it was 75%...the fact that a subset of the internals who the support was only 57% for some Native Americans is rolled up into the overall number...it's just that, a subset. CHECK
It is a private entity in which he can do what he wants, also said that. CHECK
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 26, 2013, 11:19:48 AM
you're just as unreasonable as the kooks in Seattle offended by "brown bagging"
The Seattle city government has banned the use of the term "brown bag lunch" as it was a skin tone admission standard employed by black frats and sororities. Instead, people were urged to use the term "sack lunch" which was reportedly embraced with relish by the Capitol Hill neighborhood crowd.
Seattle has also directed that staff begin using the term "residents" rather than "citizens."
I wasn't aware that people objected to the name of the Cleveland football team. I thought it was common knowledge the team was named for founder Paul Brown. In fact, I recall the Brown's mascot was a pixie character. There was never anything racial about the name Browns.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOqqmpgJECugC8cOrHyfynT1-7VRSjJdVRDcLZdJ_Qg0docW0M)
Quote from: tower912 on September 26, 2013, 01:54:38 PM
As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes. There are some with an inflated sense of self, as there are in all professions. It has been my experience that the ones who have to tell you how great they are......aren't. But referring to a later post, I think 'legend' more aptly captures the essence of Mariano Rivera.
I don't disagree.
Quote from: tower912 on September 26, 2013, 01:54:38 PM
As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes.
Anyone who has placed the needs of the many above his own self-preservation by going into harm's way is estimable by any measure. The image of the firefighters ascending the tower stairs as thousands rushed down is more eloquent than any words. God keep each and every one of those brave souls safe in His house.
Quote from: tower912 on September 26, 2013, 01:54:38 PM
As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes. There are some with an inflated sense of self, as there are in all professions. It has been my experience that the ones who have to tell you how great they are......aren't. But referring to a later post, I think 'legend' more aptly captures the essence of Mariano Rivera.
This reminds me of a Walter Payton quote- "When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 26, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
Show me how I have tied myself in knots on this. Been consistent since day one. Or where I have made this about any conspiracy? If anything, you guys have tied yourselves in knots.
To summarize, Native Americans that are ok with Redskins as a name are just wrong or don't get it, and should be ignored despite polling showing support because we (the outraged) are right and we are going to be outraged for them in their absence....that is, of course, not the case for the Native Americans that answered they are outraged in a poll about Redskins as a name (be it the minority in three scientific polls or one that we're not sure of)...they are enlightened and their answers count....HOWEVER, those same good and smart Native Americans that are outraged over Redskins are also wrong when it comes to Braves, Indians, and symbols because they are just overdoing it on the PC side and they just need to calm down because, well...it's different.
This is awesome
-----
On the other hand, I haven't tied anything into knots...been pretty straight forward:
Native Americans aren't nearly as outraged as the few non Native Americans that want to bubble this up and are inheritently outraged over just about everything anyway. Said that from day one. CHECK
I've provided backup in polling data, actual scientific polling data from Native Americans to prove my point. Someone else came up with a different poll, which we don't know if it is scientific at all, that is even older than what I had posted. That same poll, also mentions the supposed angst against other names, symbols, etc, as well, but that we should ignore (cuz it's not the same :P ). CHECK
We have some totally misinterpreting polls to begin with. In one example, the complaint was not enough participants, even though it was a statistically significant sample and done by polling firms all the time. In another example, someone is using a subset of internals to claim that is the level of folks against the nickname (this is like saying a politician won 55% of the vote, but lost lefthanders 60% to 40% and thus that 60% holds more weight than what the nation voted as a whole.) At the end of the day, 90% of Native Americans said they had no problem with it, in another it was 75%...the fact that a subset of the internals who the support was only 57% for some Native Americans is rolled up into the overall number...it's just that, a subset. CHECK
It is a private entity in which he can do what he wants, also said that. CHECK
In 2025, when there is another poll, and 51% of Native Americans decide it's offensive... are you going advocate that the name be changed?
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
So, we should get rid of all those names because these decisions must be made on the basis of polls. So says a Mr. Chico's.
You're feebly trying to link the legitimate and widespread complaints over the use of a slur (Redskins) with fringe complaints about far less offensive terms (Braves, Browns) in an attempt to delegitimize all of them as a bunch of lunatics rather than just take on the issue at hand.
FWIW ... your (disputed) source about the word's etymology makes the term no less of a slur. Plenty of contemporary ethnic slurs initially were created by the targeted group and/or have non-derogatory origins. The "N" word is one example of the latter. Or a certain 'K' word that refers to Jews.
That fact makes them no less offensive and derogatory in 2013.
Again, as others have asked, if you truly believe the word is not offensive, but rather a source of pride, would you be comfortable approaching a Native American and addressing him/her as "redskin?" Yes or no?
My disputed source? Don't think so.
No, I don't think we should get rid of ANY of those names, the polls are just there to help dampen down the absurdity when someone says "a bunch of people are against this". Uhm, ok. Really? Quantify it. That's what polling does, it's a tool, nothing more, but a tool to gauge things. Polls can be manipulated with how questions are asked, etc. So back to it, I only use the polls to show that just because the media or some outraged person thinks the numbers are on their side, doesn't mean the numbers are on their side. By the way, I used your poll for those other names...seems you want it both ways to me. You're ok that the poll supports Redskins bad, not ok the poll says Braves, Indians, etc bad. Which is it?
For the last time, it ultimately doesn't matter what I believe...it's what the supposed people that are supposedly denigrated believe. If I go to any one of the Native American high schools that use Redskins as a nickname and I sit in the stands, wear my Redskins sweatshirt, hat, and cheer GO REDSKINS...am I slurring those people? You tell me. I say no, you may feel differently.
I'm pretty sure "sack" is gonna be offensive to some class of of folks too.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 26, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
My disputed source? Don't think so.
Yes, Chico's. There are other accounts of the word's etymology.
But again, explain how that's relevant to how the term is used/viewed today? Even your study's author says:
"you could believe everything in my article" and still oppose current public usage of "redskin." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html
QuoteNo, I don't think we should get rid of ANY of those names, the polls are just there to help dampen down the absurdity when someone says "a bunch of people are against this". Uhm, ok. Really? Quantify it.
OK, Chico's, so how many people need to find the word offensive for their feelings to qualify as no longer absurd? 40 percent? 51 percent? 100 percent?
Quantify it.
QuoteFor the last time, it ultimately doesn't matter what I believe...it's what the supposed people that are supposedly denigrated believe. If I go to any one of the Native American high schools that use Redskins as a nickname and I sit in the stands, wear my Redskins sweatshirt, hat, and cheer GO REDSKINS...am I slurring those people? You tell me. I say no, you may feel differently.
Interesting that you ignore that the leader of one of those schools - a whopping three nationwide - said the term
should not be used by non-native organizations.
You're more than happy to trot out their opinions when you think it defends the term, but just as happy to ignore their opinions when it comes to the NFL Redskins.
So, would you approach a Native American and address him or her as "redskin?" I can't imagine why not, it being a term of honor.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 26, 2013, 10:00:09 AM
Again, I don't want Snyder to be forced to change a name defined as offensive and in common conversation offensive. If he wants to call his team the Greaseballs, the Wops, the Hebes (short for Hebrews, so not offensive, right?) that's his business.
I just think it's wrong.
Correct, YOU think it's wrong. The people supposedly wronged, don't agree. Thus, the irony.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Yes, Chico's. There are other accounts of the word's etymology.
But again, explain how that's relevant to how the term is used/viewed today? Even your study's author says:
"you could believe everything in my article" and still oppose current public usage of "redskin."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html
OK, Chico's, so how many people need to find the word offensive for their feelings to qualify as no longer absurd? 40 percent? 51 percent? 100 percent?
Quantify it.
Interesting that you ignore that the leader of one of those schools - a whopping three nationwide - said the term should not be used by non-native organizations.
You're more than happy to trot out their opinions when you think it defends the term, but just as happy to ignore their opinions when it comes to the NFL Redskins.
So, would you approach a Native American and address him or her as "redskin?" I can't imagine why not, it being a term of honor.
Is it a slur for me to be at a Redskins game on a Native American reservation and cheer "GO REDSKINS" in honor of their team playing right there on the field...am I slurring them? I'm right there in their presence, I must be slurring them...right? If they had a cheer that said We are, Redskins, We are, Redskins and I cheered along, are we all slurring each other?
My question doesn't seem to be answered.
And no, its more than 3 schools nationwide, but let's use your 3 and the one that is against it (note, one person, not the school)...33%. Let's reverse your question, how many people does it take to be outraged for it to matter? I've asked this question several pages ago. I ask you the same question you asked me. It seems to me you want to hold one standard where if someone is outraged, only a few people or a small percentage have to be upset and that is enough. Forget majority, you, Brew, others seem to be saying all it takes is 20%, 30% or whatever and that's enough. The minority of the minority. Interesting. If I am stating your case incorrectly, please correct me, but that's how I read your argument. In my view, the Native American population is the one that should have the biggest voice in this (not the only voice), and almost everything I've seen shows they support the name. There is always going to be a minority against everything...Apple Pie, bread, air, Browns, using more than 4 squares to wipe thy arse....you seem to put a lot more weighting on the subset of this minority population (Native Americans) to say what the majority of Native Americans feel doesn't count, it is what the minority of this minority care which matters.
EPIPHANY!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/cameras-capture-eagle-killing-deer-russia-144336036.html
Quote
Remote cameras intended to monitor Siberian tigers in Russia instead caught a golden eagle's fatal attack on a deer, snapping three photos as the massive bird dug its talons into the distressed animal's back.
London's Zoological Society, which distributed the pictures to journalists, said the sequence showed a rare but not unheard of attack by a golden eagle. The society's Linda Kerley said she first realized something was up when she approached the wildlife-monitoring device — also called a camera trap — and found a mangled deer carcass nearby.
Truly... we are indeed still Warriors. Just with another name. And Native Americans killed deer too, so I don't quite know where that leaves us.
Quote from: Benny B on September 26, 2013, 04:25:28 PM
EPIPHANY!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/cameras-capture-eagle-killing-deer-russia-144336036.html
Truly... we are indeed still Warriors. Just with another name. And Native Americans killed deer too, so I don't quite know where that leaves us.
We cannot stand for this violent caricature of a peaceful and noble bird.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 04:31:05 PM
We cannot stand for this violent caricature of a peaceful and noble bird.
but, but, but....deer are so cute. Can't we get rid of Golden Eagles?
Quote from: Benny B on September 26, 2013, 04:25:28 PM
EPIPHANY!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/cameras-capture-eagle-killing-deer-russia-144336036.html
Truly... we are indeed still Warriors. Just with another name. And Native Americans killed deer too, so I don't quite know where that leaves us.
How about we just become the Deer Killers? Or Bambi Bashers?
More articles today, including some more interviews with the outraged and those that are supposed to but are not. Fairly balanced article
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 05:17:23 PM
More articles today, including some more interviews with the outraged and those that are supposed to but are not. Fairly balanced article
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
Same old argument.
If we had the Notre Dame Drunken Irish or LSU Lynchers or Mississippi Slave Owners, then whites would be offended. Why not the Washington Whiteskins? I don't think any Indians are on the team.
I don't understand why some people need to use someone else's ethnicity (which has absolutely nothing in common with the team) to feel good about their local sports heroes.
That being said, I still don't understand why a team can't be called warriors. It does not refer to any specific people/person - but is a complimentary, generic term. Old Romans thought of themselves as warriors; we commonly call our military "warriors"; I'm sure the Nazis saw their troops as warriors. Just a generic term than any nationality can use.
Fortunately Dan Synder again yesterday said people can buy their own NFL team and name that team whatever they wish. If they don't like his team's name, they can cheer for someone else....oh and he has the support of many Native Americans, according to SCIENTIFIC polling, the majority.
Good for you Dan. The outraged can outrage over something else for a few minutes....I'm going to suggest the Amish slowing up traffic on roads paid for by taxpayers. Damn Amish!
Quote from: brandx on October 08, 2013, 08:30:37 PM
That being said, I still don't understand why a team can't be called warriors. It does not refer to any specific people/person - but is a complimentary, generic term. Old Romans thought of themselves as warriors; we commonly call our military "warriors"; I'm sure the Nazis saw their troops as warriors. Just a generic term than any nationality can use.
For us its because of Willie Wampum. If our mascot was a generic warrior, no problem. But we instead made one of the most racist mascots in sports history. We could have just changed the mascot (but not the name), but my understanding is that the tribes are worried that alumni will continue the legacy of Willie Wampum if the name is brought back. Not sure if it is true or not but I understand the fear.
Redskins name and logo replacement contest
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/check-possible-designs-possibly-renamed-washington-redskins-154242468--nfl.html
What seems to be a popular replacement for the possibly offensive "Redskins?" Yup, the "Washington Warriors" How about that?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 09, 2013, 12:25:48 AM
For us its because of Willie Wampum. If our mascot was a generic warrior, no problem. But we instead made one of the most racist mascots in sports history. We could have just changed the mascot (but not the name), but my understanding is that the tribes are worried that alumni will continue the legacy of Willie Wampum if the name is brought back. Not sure if it is true or not but I understand the fear.
It's kind of the same deal as the Braves. No, a Brave need not be a scalping savage, but the name alone brings racist activities. They still pump the Indian war chant music into the ballpark and fans still do the tomahawk chop.
If your legacy is of Indians, with a mascot as blatantly racist as Willie Wampum, you can't all of a sudden say, "Yeah, but Warriors has nothing to do with Injuns, trust us."
At least that's the argument. Don't shoot the messenger.
Quote from: MU82 on October 09, 2013, 08:29:38 AM
It's kind of the same deal as the Braves. No, a Brave need not be a scalping savage, but the name alone brings racist activities. They still pump the Indian war chant music into the ballpark and fans still do the tomahawk chop.
If your legacy is of Indians, with a mascot as blatantly racist as Willie Wampum, you can't all of a sudden say, "Yeah, but Warriors has nothing to do with Injuns, trust us."
At least that's the argument. Don't shoot the messenger.
I know that my memory may be fading with time (or maybe I was just clueless when I was at Marquette), but I really don't recall Willie Wampum from my time at Marquette. At the time they used the Warrior logo that is incorporated into 'Scoop's logo. I'm sure I probably did see Willie at some point during my time at Marquette, but I can't honestly say that I remember seeing him. It was the Warrior logo and Bleuteax (who we can all agree was an abomination). I will not shoot you, the messenger, but I completely reject that argument. They could have changed the imagery and associations, and kept the name. In my personal opinion, if they'd done that in a reasonably competent manner (which, given the "Gold" fiasco, might be a little much to ask), we'd see far less of Willie (and other Native American imagery) today that we currently do.
Quote from: MU82 on October 09, 2013, 08:29:38 AM
At least that's the argument. Don't shoot the messenger.
But this is a message board, we must!
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 09, 2013, 12:25:48 AM
For us its because of Willie Wampum. If our mascot was a generic warrior, no problem. But we instead made one of the most racist mascots in sports history. We could have just changed the mascot (but not the name), but my understanding is that the tribes are worried that alumni will continue the legacy of Willie Wampum if the name is brought back. Not sure if it is true or not but I understand the fear.
My gripe with linking Willie Wampum to the mascot change has always been timing.
Willie Wampum was gone in 1971, 23 years before the mascot change. MU did the right thing, way before they could get any credit for it. We should have kept Willie until 1990. Then we could have made a big splash by getting rid of Willie and going to a generic warrior.
I'm only kidding about keeping Willie until 1990. Doing the right thing before any one knows it is the right thing is admirable. Part of the Jesuit experience.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 08, 2013, 09:53:22 PM
Fortunately Dan Synder again yesterday said people can buy their own NFL team and name that team whatever they wish. If they don't like his team's name, they can cheer for someone else....oh and he has the support of many Native Americans, according to SCIENTIFIC polling, the majority.
Good for you Dan. The outraged can outrage over something else for a few minutes....I'm going to suggest the Amish slowing up traffic on roads paid for by taxpayers. Damn Amish!
Daniel Snyder owns the team. He can run it any way he chooses. So far he's batting 1.000. He's well established as a meddlsome, obnoxious jerk who has over spent for under performance on the field. Now he's going to the wall to retain an insulting, offensive and borderline racist nickname.
And you find this "fortunate" and pat him on the back with a hearty "good for you, Dan". I'm mostly conservative/libertarian. I detest the PC crowd and have no problem with Braves, Warriors, even Indians (except for the "Chief Wahoo" logo). But clinging to and celebrating a nickname that, BY DEFINITION, is offensive is backward thinking at best, racist at worst.
Those proposed new names for the Washington football team are interesting, but they missed the best proposal that I've heard: The Washington Thinskins.
He sent this out to Redskin nation yesterday
http://files.redskins.com/pdf/A-Letter-from-Dan-Snyder.pdf
Redskins Owner Dan Snyder yesterday offered his "most detailed defense to date of the Redskins name," writing a letter to fans explaining his stance on the issue, according to Shin & Steinberg of the WASHINGTON POST. Snyder writes in the letter that while he respects the "opinions of those who are offended by the team name ... we cannot ignore our 81-year history." Tens of thousands of fans and season-ticket holders "began receiving e-mails and letters from Snyder on Wednesday, four days after President Obama added his voice to the decades-long debate over the team name." The "often-combative" Snyder in the letter took a "softer, more personal approach than he has in the past." He also "rejected any negative characterization of the name." He cited a nine-year-old Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of 800 Native Americans across 48 states that "showed nine out of 10 did not find the name offensive." Snyder also "pointed to an April Associated Press-GFK poll" that found 79% of those surveyed said the team should keep its name. He "quoted leaders of American Indian tribes in Virginia who have publicly expressed support for the name in news stories." Snyder wrote, "I've listened carefully to the commentary and perspectives on all sides, and I respect the feelings of those who are offended by the team name. But I hope such individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington Redskins family, but among Native Americans too." His "intended audience -- Redskins fans -- largely applauded the team's shift to a less confrontational, more empathetic tone" (WASHINGTON POST, 10/10). Snyder in the letter "invoked the franchise's proud tradition and his personal experience going to games with his father, Gerry, at RFK Stadium" (WASHINGTON TIMES, 10/10).
Of course, the outraged are having a different spin. They know best. The last line below kills me...uhm, I think he was asked a question and he answered it. It's not as if he was chomping at the bit to put that out. ::)
WHAT THE DEBATE COMES DOWN TO: In N.Y., Ken Belson in a front-page piece writes the name debate "tends to settle on one question: how many people must be offended by a team's name for a change to be warranted?" (N.Y. TIMES, 10/10). Also in N.Y., Filip Bondy writes Snyder is "just another holdout wrapping himself in the false romantic notion that his football team is somehow honoring Native Americans with its name" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 10/10). Sociologist Dr. Harry Edwards said, "For someone to be so incompetent, to be so deficient in terms of their facility and dexterity with the standard linguistic currency of the culture to such an extent that they have to resort to epithets in order to express themselves, it's not so much offensive as it is pathetic" ("Jim Rome On Showtime," 10/9). In Utah, Doug Robinson wrote the "end is near." The NFL and the Redskins "just don't know it yet." They "just have to decide how long they want to resist the inevitable" (DESERETNEWS.com, 10/9). CBSSN's Tony Luftman: "If Barack Obama, with the government in a shutdown, takes time to comment on this, I say it rises to a level of serious interest"
Quote from: brandx on October 08, 2013, 08:30:37 PM
Same old argument.
If we had the Notre Dame Drunken Irish or LSU Lynchers or Mississippi Slave Owners, then whites would be offended. Why not the Washington Whiteskins? I don't think any Indians are on the team.
Isn't this the point, those are offensive because they are negative and derogatory. To my knowledge the name of your team is a positive. I do not know of any teams called the Drunken Indians, the Lazy Redskins, or the Murdering Apaches. As far as the Marquette Warriors, when I was at MU, there was a Native American as the mascot and he received a full ride scholarship. Not bad for getting to see all the games for free. Of course if he was at a party, in high school, with beer he probably would have to give up his scholarship.
(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/23/23816/2x1/1200.jpg?9603)
h/t The Onion
(can a mod resize this SOB?)
Need help resizin'? Try the junior or petite dept.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 12:17:10 PM
He sent this out to Redskin nation yesterday
http://files.redskins.com/pdf/A-Letter-from-Dan-Snyder.pdf
Snyder has fond memories of going to watch the Redskins when he was 6. So what? I'm sure some now grown men from Pekin, Illinois have fond memories of watching the Chinks play. If changing a derogatory nickname soils those memories I'd say it's pretty clear those little boys haven't grown up much.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 10, 2013, 02:35:04 PM
Snyder has fond memories of going to watch the Redskins when he was 6. So what? I'm sure some now grown men from Pekin, Illinois have fond memories of watching the Chinks play. If changing a derogatory nickname soils those memories I'd say it's pretty clear those little boys haven't grown up much.
Furthermore, changing the nickname shouldn't cause you to enjoy the product any more or less.
I mean, I hate the fact that MU is no longer the Warriors, but I don't love the basketball team any less than I would have otherwise.
Redskins does not equal Drunken This or Lazy That. All the use of adjectives before a name does is cloud an argument.
Redskins = Darkies.
We wouldn't name a team the Darkies.
Back in the early '90s, I was the moderator on a panel to discuss the use of Native American imagery in sports. As I sat there, listening to white people tell the two Native Americans on the panel that they really had no reason to be insulted by "traditions" such as the Redskins nickname or Chief Wahoo, it did open my eyes to the Native Americans' point of view.
I wonder if those same folks would have tried to say Darkies was OK, too.
Quote from: MU82 on October 10, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Redskins does not equal Drunken This or Lazy That. All the use of adjectives before a name does is cloud an argument.
Redskins = Darkies.
We wouldn't name a team the Darkies.
Back in the early '90s, I was the moderator on a panel to discuss the use of Native American imagery in sports. As I sat there, listening to white people tell the two Native Americans on the panel that they really had no reason to be insulted by "traditions" such as the Redskins nickname or Chief Wahoo, it did open my eyes to the Native Americans' point of view.
I wonder if those same folks would have tried to say Darkies was OK, too.
If you can find a tradition to dress it up in I'm sure they would.
Quote from: MU82 on October 10, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Redskins = Darkies.
We wouldn't name a team the Darkies.
What a crock of crap! The only people who think Redskins=Darkies are people who are prejudiced. Look in the mirror. Why would anyone name the team they love and root for after something they hate? That makes no sense. You think Snyder bought the team so he could go root for the Darkies? There will always be people, like the Rev. Al Sharpton and some on this board who complain just to try and stay relevant. No fan likes the name of his team because he wants to insult someone.
http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450
In case anyone doubted that Rick Reilly sucks.
Quote from: MU82 on October 10, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Back in the early '90s, I was the moderator on a panel to discuss the use of Native American imagery in sports. As I sat there, listening to white people tell the two Native Americans on the panel that they really had no reason to be insulted by "traditions" such as the Redskins nickname or Chief Wahoo, it did open my eyes to the Native Americans' point of view.
Have those people watch or better yet, read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and they will see the anguish that the white settlers inflicted on the native american tribes. Just appalling but they don't mention any of that in the history books.
Why is it white Europeans are the only ones who run over native peoples and take their land?
Native Americans were doing that to each other for centuries as that is the history of mankind since before time. I recently saw a documentary on an African tribe and the elder was explaining how they had driven out the previous tribe a mere 20 years ago.
White European guilt and money are the reasons we hear this stuff all the time. It wasn't invented here and we don't own a monopoly on subjugating peoples.
The most popular brand of toothpaste in China, Taiwan, and ASEAN is Darlie. Darlie was originally named "Darkie" and manufactured by Hawley & Hazel in Hong Kong. Colgate-Palmolive bought Hawley & Hazel in the 80's, mainly because of the popularity of the Darkie brand. Darkie continued under that name into the 90's when Colgate came under fire for the brand. It was renamed "Darlie" which in Mandarin means "black person." The brand remains one of the best selling in the world and continues to use a dark-faced character as its image.
(http://thefoodandrant.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/darkie.jpg)
Quote from: elephantraker on October 10, 2013, 04:17:53 PM
Why is it white Europeans are the only ones who run over native peoples and take their land?
Native Americans were doing that to each other for centuries as that is the history of mankind since before time. I recently saw a documentary on an African tribe and the elder was explaining how they had driven out the previous tribe a mere 20 years ago.
White European guilt and money are the reasons we hear this stuff all the time. It wasn't invented here and we don't own a monopoly on subjugating peoples.
Why is this relevant??
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 03:59:42 PM
What a crock of crap! The only people who think Redskins=Darkies are people who are prejudiced. Look in the mirror. Why would anyone name the team they love and root for after something they hate?
Because George Preston Marshall was a complete racist tool.
Quote from: only a warrior on October 10, 2013, 04:04:07 PM
Have those people watch or better yet, read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and they will see the anguish that the white settlers inflicted on the native american tribes. Just appalling but they don't mention any of that in the history books.
Why is this relevant?
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 05:28:48 PM
Because George Preston Marshall was a complete racist tool.
Yes he was, but that had nothing to do with the name of his team. It came from the Boston Braves. How is this relevant to the Marquette Warriors? You still have not addressed my point of why people choose names for their teams? It is not to be derogatory to some one or thing but to be proud of them.
Quote from: elephantraker on October 10, 2013, 04:17:53 PM
Why is it white Europeans are the only ones who run over native peoples and take their land?
Native Americans were doing that to each other for centuries as that is the history of mankind since before time. I recently saw a documentary on an African tribe and the elder was explaining how they had driven out the previous tribe a mere 20 years ago.
White European guilt and money are the reasons we hear this stuff all the time. It wasn't invented here and we don't own a monopoly on subjugating peoples.
There's so much arrogance and ignorance in this statement. I don't even know where to begin. All I'll say now is "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
$7.10 for a tube of toothpaste? Guess I'm in on the wrong end of this business, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 10, 2013, 06:04:03 PM
$7.10 for a tube of toothpaste? Guess I'm in on the wrong end of this business, hey?
HK$7.10 is about 92 cents US. HKD is 7.78 to the USD.
I never used Darlie but it is a big seller in China.
Still on the wrong end of this business.
MU82, Lenny's Tap, TAMU, Sultan, and anyone else answer this questions for me please. If a group of Greeks started to complain that the Michigan State Spartans was a derogatory nick name that brought shame upon the 300 brave Spartans that fought at Thermopylae, should MSU change their name?
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 06:23:56 PM
MU82, Lenny's Tap, TAMU, Sultan, and anyone else answer this questions for me please. If a group of Greeks started to complain that the Michigan State Spartans was a derogatory nick name that brought shame upon the 300 brave Spartans that fought at Thermopylae, should MSU change their name?
Poor analogy on a number of levels
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 06:23:56 PM
MU82, Lenny's Tap, TAMU, Sultan, and anyone else answer this questions for me please. If a group of Greeks started to complain that the Michigan State Spartans was a derogatory nick name that brought shame upon the 300 brave Spartans that fought at Thermopylae, should MSU change their name?
A Spartan is a native of Sparta, like an Athenian or a New Yorker. Nothing even mildly offensive. Redskin is an often derogatory, insulting term for a Native American. Look it up in any dictionary or watch any of scores of Westerns from the 50s and 60s and it will be obvious.
(http://buffalopost.net/wp-content/uploads/fightinwhites.png)
(http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues02/Co03232002/Art/whities.jpg)
Tom Crean's Alma Mater
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/18484/tribe-supports-native-american-mascots
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 02:31:09 PM
This is the money line: "Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you."
That sums it up. Never underestimate the power of white guilt in this country and the sanctimonious nonsense that comes with it. If you aren't offended, by golly there are a bunch of peeps here that will tell you just how offensive it is and how you should be reacting. And how dare you if you aren't acting that way. They might even call you a name if you don't react, like Uncle Tom. Is there a "Native American" equivalent? Good for Reilly to not be in the herd mentality and call out what the vast majority of folks actually are saying, rather than the one-offs that the press and the PC crowd puts up as THE POSITION.
I'm sure Reilly is getting drilled today for using some of the same stats and references I did the other day, so I expect he is getting drilled hard. ;)
I'm sure Reilly is getting drilled today, too. It happens when you totally misrepresent a source's views in order to push an agenda. He should be out of a job, and that might not be the worst of it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 10, 2013, 06:33:13 PM
A Spartan is a native of Sparta, like an Athenian or a New Yorker. Nothing even mildly offensive. Redskin is an often derogatory, insulting term for a Native American. Look it up in any dictionary or watch any of scores of Westerns from the 50s and 60s and it will be obvious.
Seriously, it amazes me that people can't really figure this out.
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 05:58:49 PM
Yes he was, but that had nothing to do with the name of his team. It came from the Boston Braves.
Right....and the overt racist gave it a more overly racist name. What is your point? Don't you realize that "redskin" is a derogatory term?
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 08:03:18 PM
Right....and the overt racist gave it a more overly racist name. What is your point? Don't you realize that "redskin" is a derogatory term?
As a Caucasion, I'm not sure I like being called paleface, whitey or honky either....
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 08:03:18 PM
Right....and the overt racist gave it a more overly racist name. What is your point? Don't you realize that "redskin" is a derogatory term?
Don't you realize most Native Americans don't agree with you?
Quote from: Nukem2 on October 10, 2013, 08:40:07 PM
As a Caucasion, I'm not sure I like being called paleface, whitey or honky either....
How about Kemosabe?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 08:56:34 PM
Don't you realize most Native Americans don't agree with you?
A significant enough number do. But why am I surprised? It is already established that you really don't think racism is that big of a deal anyway.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 08:00:23 PM
Seriously, it amazes me that people can't really figure this out.
Seriously, it amazes me that someone who uses the term
Sultan as part of there name, clearly offensive too all Muslims, is so understanding to the evils of MU teams being called the Warriors.
Quote from: hairyworthen on October 10, 2013, 06:29:45 PM
Poor analogy on a number of levels
Enlighten me, on what levels? Two ethnic groups, Spartans and Indians, that sports teams see have positive attributes, so they name their teams after them.
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:03:22 PM
Seriously, it amazes me that someone who uses the term Sultan as part of there name, clearly offensive too all Muslims,
Someone needs a dictionary.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 08:56:34 PM
Don't you realize most Native Americans don't agree with you?
You do realize that you found three studies, at least one of which was sponsored by Sports Illustrated. I don't agree with you but I know you are smart enough to know that these don't prove that most native americans are okay with white people referring to them as redskins.
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Enlighten me, on what levels? Two ethnic groups, Spartans and Indians, that sports teams see have positive attributes, so they name their teams after them.
Spartans weren't an "ethnic group." Sparta was a city you know. It's like "Chicagoan."
Quote from: Nukem2 on October 10, 2013, 08:40:07 PM
As a Caucasion, I'm not sure I like being called paleface, whitey or honky either....
how do you feel about gringo?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 10, 2013, 09:09:02 PM
You do realize that you found three studies, at least one of which was sponsored by Sports Illustrated. I don't agree with you but I know you are smart enough to know that these don't prove that most native americans are okay with white people referring to them as redskins.
One was from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Institute, and that one was also scientific and confirmed the same results. I've yet to find a poll that is a scientific poll that says anything counter to that. Pakuni's poll he cited was not scientific.
I guess I don't understand why it matters if SI sponsored it. Are they anti Native American? Did they not hire a third party to do the poll (unlike the one Pakuni cited?)
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:08:32 PM
Someone needs a dictionary.
ˈsəltn/
noun
1.
a Muslim sovereign.
; noun: the Sultan
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Enlighten me, on what levels? Two ethnic groups, Spartans and Indians, that sports teams see have positive attributes, so they name their teams after them.
1. Indians isn't the proper name
2. Spartan isn't an ethnicity
3. Even if it was, it's a dead civilization
4. Spartans are Europeans which is who most white Americans are descended from. Since we share ancestors, we have more legitimacy to use it as a mascot
5. To my knowledge the Michigan State Spartan has never been displayed as a bucktoothed, red skinned, racist effigy
6. Michigan state does not use sacred Spartan traditions as sideshow attractions at sporting events
Those were the six I came up with in two minutes. I can probably come up with some more if you want
Quote from: Nukem2 on October 10, 2013, 08:40:07 PM
As a Caucasion, I'm not sure I like being called paleface, whitey or honky either....
Anyone who has lived in Asia has heard Gwei Lo, Bak Guiy, Gaijin, Bule, Farang, Ang Mo, Bok See Dah, Lao Wai, Puting Tao, Bai Tau, Chite, Henna Gaijin, Dholia, Chow Yan Kwi Ze, and Gubba.
Quote from: keefe on October 10, 2013, 09:24:57 PM
Anyone who has lived in Asia has heard Gwei Lo, Bak Guiy, Gaijin, Bule, Farang, Ang Mo, Bok See Dah, Lao Wai, Puting Tao, Bai Tau, Chite, Henna Gaijin, Dholia, Chow Yan Kwi Ze, and Gubba.
Or, Keefe.... ;)
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
ˈsəltn/
noun
1.
a Muslim sovereign.
; noun: the Sultan
Congrats! Now tell me how that would be relevant?
Hint: If we were debating the Sacramento Kings nickname it might be...but we aren't.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 10, 2013, 09:23:15 PM
1. Indians isn't the proper name
2. Spartan isn't an ethnicity
3. Even if it was, it's a dead civilization
4. Spartans are Europeans which is who most white Americans are descended from. Since we share ancestors, we have more legitimacy to use it as a mascot
5. To my knowledge the Michigan State Spartan has never been displayed as a bucktoothed, red skinned, racist effigy
6. Michigan state does not use sacred Spartan traditions as sideshow attractions at sporting events
Those were the six I came up with in two minutes. I can probably come up with some more if you want
Game.
Set.
Match.
Quote from: Nukem2 on October 10, 2013, 09:36:56 PM
Or, Keefe.... ;)
You must be mistaking me for a white dude...
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
Spartans weren't an "ethnic group." Sparta was a city you know. It's like "Chicagoan."
eth·nic·i·ty
eTHˈnisitē/
noun
1.
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
"Sparta was unique in Ancient Greece for its social system and constitution which completely focused on military training and excellence."
Sparta was a city state that had a common national and cultural tradition.
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:40:00 PM
eth·nic·i·ty
eTHˈnisitē/
noun
1.
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
"Sparta was unique in Ancient Greece for its social system and constitution which completely focused on military training and excellence."
Sparta was a city state that had a common national and cultural tradition.
They were Greek. Being focused on military training doesn't make them a separate ethnic group.
Nice try though.
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:40:00 PM
eth·nic·i·ty
eTHˈnisitē/
noun
1.
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
"Sparta was unique in Ancient Greece for its social system and constitution which completely focused on military training and excellence."
Sparta was a city state that had a common national and cultural tradition.
If you really think Spartans is as offensive as Redskins, what's the use of even trying to have a discussion?
It's like saying flies are the same as dogs, so anybody who kills a fly, it's as bad as killing a dog.
Michael Vick, is that you?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 09:19:01 PM
One was from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Institute, and that one was also scientific and confirmed the same results. I've yet to find a poll that is a scientific poll that says anything counter to that. Pakuni's poll he cited was not scientific.
I guess I don't understand why it matters if SI sponsored it. Are they anti Native American? Did they not hire a third party to do the poll (unlike the one Pakuni cited?)
Rather than a poll, go to a bar owned, operated and catering to Native Americans. Start with the bartender - "Hey, redskin, how about a beer?" If that doesn't get the sh$t beaten out of you, continue referring to the patrons that way until it does. We'll see what percentage cheer your attacker on and what percentage says "Wait, don't you know that redskin is a term that honors us?". My guess is you'll be disappointed with the outcome on "multiple" levels.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 10, 2013, 09:23:15 PM
1. Indians isn't the proper name
2. Spartan isn't an ethnicity
3. Even if it was, it's a dead civilization
4. Spartans are Europeans which is who most white Americans are descended from. Since we share ancestors, we have more legitimacy to use it as a mascot
5. To my knowledge the Michigan State Spartan has never been displayed as a bucktoothed, red skinned, racist effigy
6. Michigan state does not use sacred Spartan traditions as sideshow attractions at sporting events
Those were the six I came up with in two minutes. I can probably come up with some more if you want
1. American Indian....excuse me
2. As I just showed Spartans is an ethnicity.
3. What does this matter, there are still people who still relate back to that history or are you saying that if we had wiped out the entire "American Indian" population it would be ok for MU to use Warrior?
4. This makes no sense. What you seem to be saying is it is ok to use a derogatory term (your assertion not mine) if somehow you are part of the group. So a football team on an Indian reservation could call themselves the Warriors? Org rambling could call themselves The Ni@@ers?
5. When I attended MU the mascot was an Native American Indian who was dressed in traditional American Indian clothes and performed traditional American Indian dances and was awarded a full scholarship for his troubles.
6. See #5
Try coming up with some more, that are accurate. While you are at it, try to explain to me how a name of a team, obviously, meant to be positive because you do not name your something negative that you hate, is offensive.
Quote from: MU82 on October 10, 2013, 09:45:50 PM
If you really think Spartans is as offensive as Redskins, what's the use of even trying to have a discussion?
It's like saying flies are the same as dogs, so anybody who kills a fly, it's as bad as killing a dog.
This thread is titled "the Gold" my main issue is the Marquette Warriors.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:43:27 PM
They were Greek. Being focused on military training doesn't make them a separate ethnic group.
If you genuinely believe that ancient Greece had a defined sense of nationhood then you really do not understand the socio-political milieu.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:43:27 PM
They were Greek. Being focused on military training doesn't make them a separate ethnic group.
Nice try though.
The Spartans were a social group that had common cultural traditions. Just because you say so or disagree does not make something so. Nice try though.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 10, 2013, 06:00:53 PM
There's so much arrogance and ignorance in this statement. I don't even know where to begin. All I'll say now is "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
Bury My heart at Wounded knee is a compelling book.
Let's not forget that the Iriquous nearly exterminated the Erie in a most brutal fashion. The Chippewa and the Sioux were mortal enemies. It wasn't that long ago.
Quote from: keefe on October 10, 2013, 10:03:37 PM
If you genuinely believe that ancient Greece had a defined sense of nationhood then you really do not understand the socio-political milieu.
It's my understanding that Italy didn't even have a true sense of nationhood until around WWII. To this day there are people in Sicily as well as outer parts of the countryside who still do not speak Italian (Tuscan)
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:38:10 PM
Congrats! Now tell me how that would be relevant?
Hint: If we were debating the Sacramento Kings nickname it might be...but we aren't.
I just thought you would be more sensitive to Sultans, having read some of your posts I think you give Sultans a bad name. Quite frankly, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know Sultans, I have worked with Sultans , you are no Sultan!
TAMU....the SI Poll was conducted by the Peter Harris Research Group, an independent polling firm.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
Spartans weren't an "ethnic group." Sparta was a city you know. It's like "Chicagoan."
Chicagoans are offensive!
Vikings slaughtered people, why do we celebrate them every Sunday (well, many of us don't celebrate them)?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FdEdvFQfwAU/S4VI6ajHxSI/AAAAAAAAOYs/oMvJLxlrOO4/s320/warriors2_full.gif)
I'm finding some delicious irony that Lanny Davis is the attorney hired by Dan Snyder to make his case. Lanny Davis. :D The squirming going on by some folks is delicious with that one. LOL
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on October 10, 2013, 09:43:27 PM
They were Greek. Being focused on military training doesn't make them a separate ethnic group.
Nice try though.
If you believe this, Keefe is right you know nothing about ancient greece.
For one, yes Spartans were a different ethnicity. Typically then referred to as Dorians. Athenians were of Ionian descent and Thebes of Aeolian descent. Greek was a hodgepodge of ethnicities, which is partially why the city states feuded so often.
Now back to whatever it is everyone is arguing about.
I find the irony rather delicious...
(http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ap519933176718.jpg?w=620&h=465)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-521tO38ZcOs/URlqPb_uJOI/AAAAAAAAAA8/SIpjavdg1H8/s200/cheif+zee.jpg)
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/files/2013/02/strongbow213a.jpg)
(http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/130110/redskins_fan300x400_18esaig-18esaip.jpg)
(http://thedailyplunge.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tomahawk-chop-jane-fonda.jpg)
Atta Girl, Hanoi!!!
TT and JF have been poster children for the Do as I say, Not as I do crowd for decades.
(http://www.achievement.org/achievers/tur0/large/tur0-006.jpg)
Some here want to ignore history because they want to be outraged.
Here's the bottom line: warriors was picked because that is what we wished to emulate and think of As a powerful image of Marquette. Warriors were brave, strong and fearless. When I was at MU, WW was a student in buckskin and a headress. Native American students then didn't object. Previously WW was more of a caracature because, I believe, it was the era of Disney and cartoonish mascots were the vogue. Nobody intended anything derogatory and no one ever intimated that it was.
(http://www.murraythenut.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/outraged.png)
(http://settlercolonialism.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cleveland-indians.png)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
I'm finding some delicious irony that Lanny Davis is the attorney hired by Dan Snyder to make his case. Lanny Davis. :D The squirming going on by some folks is delicious with that one. LOL
What irony? This has nothing to with right or left, pc or non pc. It's about common sense and the fact that words mean something. There are ignoramuses on both sides of the political spectrum. That's not exactly a relevation.
(http://www.pownetwork.org/fonda/fonda4.jpg)
(http://moonbattery.com/Treason-Then-Treason-Now.jpg)
(http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/JaneFondaTRAITORImage1.jpg)
Quote from: elephantraker on October 10, 2013, 10:56:05 PM
Some here want to ignore history because they want to be outraged.
Here's the bottom line: warriors was picked because that is what we wished to emulate and think of As a powerful image of Marquette. Warriors were brave, strong and fearless. When I was at MU, WW was a student in buckskin and a headress. Native American students then didn't object. Previously WW was more of a caracature because, I believe, it was the era of Disney and cartoonish mascots were the vogue. Nobody intended anything derogatory and no one ever intimated that it was.
Nothing at all wrong with warriors - best nickname ever. Those who lump warriors with Redskins, Chinks, etc., are not very smart, racist, or both.
Quote from: Jay Bee on October 10, 2013, 11:13:44 PM
(http://settlercolonialism.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cleveland-indians.png)
We saw these hat images yesterday and discussed in our carpool...I pool with one Japanese, and two Chinese (my town is predominantly Asian). The Chinese colleagues loved it and said they were going to start their own line like this. One is an entrepreneur in these types of things, so I wouldn't put it past him.
Go figure.
Disappointed that the folks that did this ad stole the idea from the early 1990's, but what are you going to do.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1052/1490562853_ea70cd5fc3.jpg)
In the meantime, enjoy these....that Celtic is not an appropriate symbol for Caucasians. Not inclusive enough...it's a male, that is demeaning to women. He smokes, which is a terrible habit.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/white_trash_hat_embroidered_hat-p233891907444594662bk6hs_324.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSskkhm2uZwO-f177UrA2wwNRqwCdQJQhaApRQEwzNKzE4y7BLCIg)
(http://www.hatjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/undefeated-unlv-snapback-caps-2.jpg)
(http://www.simplysneakers.com/wp-content/gallery/2/rnj_pdres.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ulI9JZvlL.jpg)
(http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/ximages/Quakers/QuakerOats.jpg)
(http://media.mrclean.com/en_US/common/images/mrClean_CS_MrClean_logo.png)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 10, 2013, 11:16:52 PM
What irony? This has nothing to with right or left, pc or non pc. It's about common sense and the fact that words mean something. There are ignoramuses on both sides of the political spectrum. That's not exactly a relevation.
Oh are you naive....just look who is lining up on which sides of this (for the most part).
Quote from: Pakuni on October 10, 2013, 04:03:40 PM
http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450
In case anyone doubted that Rick Reilly sucks.
Not really. Two sides to every story. Let's hear Rick's....weird that Deadspin didn't include his side....weird.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rpkd7s
Quote from: denverMU on October 10, 2013, 09:59:04 PM
1. American Indian....excuse me
2. As I just showed Spartans is an ethnicity.
3. What does this matter, there are still people who still relate back to that history or are you saying that if we had wiped out the entire "American Indian" population it would be ok for MU to use Warrior?
4. This makes no sense. What you seem to be saying is it is ok to use a derogatory term (your assertion not mine) if somehow you are part of the group. So a football team on an Indian reservation could call themselves the Warriors? Org rambling could call themselves The Ni@@ers?
5. When I attended MU the mascot was an Native American Indian who was dressed in traditional American Indian clothes and performed traditional American Indian dances and was awarded a full scholarship for his troubles.
6. See #5
Try coming up with some more, that are accurate. While you are at it, try to explain to me how a name of a team, obviously, meant to be positive because you do not name your something negative that you hate, is offensive.
1. You're excused :)
2. By my understanding of the culture, Spartans refer to Greeks from the city of Sparta. Therefore, their ethnicity would be Greek, not Spartan. However as someone pointed out (Keefe I think) Greece was divided into city states and an argument could be made that it was a specific ethnicity.
3. Yes I am saying that. No one has referred to themselves as a Spartan in the sense that Michigan State uses it in over 1500 years. Even if we had completely wiped out that American Indians, I would guess that not enough time would have passed at this point. But I don't know. Who can say how long is enough? Fortunately, we live in a world where that didn't happen.
4. Absolutely. And the NCAA agrees with me. When they forced the mascot changes back in 2005, they included a clause that said that Tribal Colleges (universities whose population is at least 20% native american...I'm pretty sure its 20%) could keep their mascots without penalty. That's why UNC-Pembroke still is and always will be the Braves. Who says the word matters. Its similar to how it is more socially acceptable (I include the qualifier more because I know some disagree) for black men and women to use the n-word but not for white people.
5. What I'm referring to is Willie Wampum, one of the most racist mascots of all time. He is an embarrassment to all Marquette alums and I can't believe how many people still glorify him. But it sounds like Willie was gone when you went to school. Using a native american in traditional garb is much better, but still not good, which I'll explain in #6. I don't know but I'm hoping that the mascot actually was native american and his garb and dances were actually from his own tribe? Cause if we dressed some white boy up and asked him to be the mascot, that's just awful (Florida State used to do that, I think they changed recently).
6. What many people fail to understand is that just because traditional garb and music is used does not mean it is respectful. Do you know what native americans wore as every day clothing? It's not what the mascots are wearing on the court. Headdresses and war paint were used almost exclusively as symbols of power and religion. The dances and music that you heard were sacred prayers that are central to their faith. How do you think a native student would feel watching their religion being reduced to a sideshow attraction? It would be like having a team called Imams and using the muslim call to prayer as pump up music.
And to answer your last question look at answers 1-6. But also, think about what mascots are. They are animals, occupations, landmarks, verbs, astrological bodies. To put a group of living people in that same category is demeaning. Think about it. You wouldn't be comfortable being named the Marquette Jews, or the Marquette Arabs, or the Marquette Africans. So why is it ok to do for Native Americans?
Look, I love the name Warriors. On its own, it is not offensive in the slightest. We made it offensive. It became offensive the day we rolled out Willie Wampum. From then on, the name was associated with a big headed, buck toothed, red skinned monstrosity. I know it was the sixities, I know we didn't mean any harm, but it was still wrong. Could the 1993 administration have handled it better? Yes. Could they have taken some time to ween us off the native american imagery? Yes. Could we have become a generic Warrior without too much fuss? Probably. I don't agree with how it was handled, but they thought the name change was necessary. And now we only hurt our own cause by continuing to curse the bleeding heart liberals and the natives for making us get rid of our precious mascot and by glorifying Willie Wampum. If you want Warriors back, stop complaining, get rid of any native american imagery in your profiles, stop wearing willie wampum memorabilia to games, and someone steal that sham of a headdress that the student section passes around and burn it.
...Sorry, didn't mean for this post to get this long. Hope you enjoyed my soapbox!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 10:21:31 PM
TAMU....the SI Poll was conducted by the Peter Harris Research Group, an independent polling firm.
That's great. How much I think that matters? Maybe 12%?
You are a smart guy Chicos. You can find every poll that you want that says that Native Americans approve of the Washington Redskins. I wouldn't believe any of it for a second. I know you are going to jump all over that comment so wait a sec. You know as well as I do that stats do lie. Depending on how you look at and interpret the numbers you could make that data say anything that you want. I could take a poll of MUScoopers and easily twist the data to say that eveyone believes that Notre Dame is a jolly good place and that you are a kind old soul who has an undying hatred of Tom Crean.
The reason that I bring up SI sponsoring it is because they would never publish a study that criticized schools or franchises for using native american imagery. They, just like every other form of media, pander to their subscribers. Do you think the Florida State fans and Redskins fans are going to approve when SI releases data that says their beloved team is racist?
However, the opposite is also true. It could be that 91% of natives are happy being called redskins by suburban white folk. The native americans I know personally certainly are not but that is a small sample size. Maybe I hang out with the 9% of angry bitter native americans who take offense at everything.
Here is what I know for sure. Someone else used this example but I liked it so I'm going to use it again. If you truly believe that native americans aren't offended by white people calling them redskins, take the drive up to Lac Du Flambeau, WI. Its a small town in the middle of the Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwa Nation Reservation. Order a beer from Cricket's Pub and call the bartender a redskin. I've spent many a night in that pub and I don't think you would like what the regulars would want to do to you. Be sure to tell them you mean in a respectful way that should bring them pride. I'm sure they will love that.
This is rapidly approaching The Everlasting Craptastical Mystery Thread (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=31777.0) in terms of stupidity.
Guys...you will never agree. You can parrot all the statistics, pics, and arguments you want, this is a completely inane discussion that will never go anywhere. Ever.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 10, 2013, 11:02:33 PM
(http://www.murraythenut.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/outraged.png)
fits you perfectly
Quote from: keefe on October 10, 2013, 10:03:37 PM
If you genuinely believe that ancient Greece had a defined sense of nationhood then you really do not understand the socio-political milieu.
I never said that the Greeks had a defined sense of nationhood.
Quote from: forgetful on October 10, 2013, 10:30:18 PM
If you believe this, Keefe is right you know nothing about ancient greece.
For one, yes Spartans were a different ethnicity. Typically then referred to as Dorians. Athenians were of Ionian descent and Thebes of Aeolian descent. Greek was a hodgepodge of ethnicities, which is partially why the city states feuded so often.
Now back to whatever it is everyone is arguing about.
Dorians are oftentimes considered part of a greater Greek ethnicity. Probably like how certain native american tribes were different from one another, but are now considered part of a larger native american ethnicity.
But whatever. MSU is not only not called the "Michigan State Dorians," but they aren't called whatever derogatory nickname that the Dorians might have had.
It's simply a bad parallel.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on October 11, 2013, 01:03:16 AM
That's great. How much I think that matters? Maybe 12%?
You are a smart guy Chicos. You can find every poll that you want that says that Native Americans approve of the Washington Redskins. I wouldn't believe any of it for a second. I know you are going to jump all over that comment so wait a sec. You know as well as I do that stats do lie. Depending on how you look at and interpret the numbers you could make that data say anything that you want. I could take a poll of MUScoopers and easily twist the data to say that eveyone believes that Notre Dame is a jolly good place and that you are a kind old soul who has an undying hatred of Tom Crean.
The reason that I bring up SI sponsoring it is because they would never publish a study that criticized schools or franchises for using native american imagery. They, just like every other form of media, pander to their subscribers. Do you think the Florida State fans and Redskins fans are going to approve when SI releases data that says their beloved team is racist?
However, the opposite is also true. It could be that 91% of natives are happy being called redskins by suburban white folk. The native americans I know personally certainly are not but that is a small sample size. Maybe I hang out with the 9% of angry bitter native americans who take offense at everything.
Here is what I know for sure. Someone else used this example but I liked it so I'm going to use it again. If you truly believe that native americans aren't offended by white people calling them redskins, take the drive up to Lac Du Flambeau, WI. Its a small town in the middle of the Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwa Nation Reservation. Order a beer from Cricket's Pub and call the bartender a redskin. I've spent many a night in that pub and I don't think you would like what the regulars would want to do to you. Be sure to tell them you mean in a respectful way that should bring them pride. I'm sure they will love that.
So you will believe the data when it suits your beliefs but not when it doesn't? Sure, stats can lie, but that's why when you have multiple studies, or polls, etc, done differently by different firms each time and they use the scientific method AND they all come out the same, well that's when it becomes a bit more than just a random statistic.
I like your example, but no one ever responds to mine. Say I go to any of the Native American high schools with the Redskins name and I wear a Redskins shirt and I cheer at the top of my lungs saying GO REDSKINS. I make up a sign, run around like a mad man with war paint on my face. Think the other fans there are going to come down on me? Think they are going to think it's problematic...afterall this is the name of their team. That is what we are talking about, right, the name of a team?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 11, 2013, 08:51:11 AM
So you will believe the data when it suits your beliefs but not when it doesn't? Sure, stats can lie, but that's why when you have multiple studies, or polls, etc, done differently by different firms each time and they use the scientific method AND they all come out the same, well that's when it becomes a bit more than just a random statistic.
I like your example, but no one ever responds to mine. Say I go to any of the Native American high schools with the Redskins name and I wear a Redskins shirt and I cheer at the top of my lungs saying GO REDSKINS. I make up a sign, run around like a mad man with war paint on my face. Think the other fans there are going to come down on me? Think they are going to think it's problematic...afterall this is the name of their team. That is what we are talking about, right, the name of a team?
I think if a white dude started doing what you are describing at this imaginary game there would definitely be issues.
There is your response. Now please respond to the scenario posed by TAMU.
This should be entertaining.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 11, 2013, 08:56:16 AM
I think if a white dude started doing what you are describing at this imaginary game there would definitely be issues.
There is your response. Now please respond to the scenario posed by TAMU.
This should be entertaining.
You think a lot of things that you have been wrong on, so why should this be any different? How's that debt and deficit going...you were spectacular on that one the other day. Spectacular.
With your logic when Notre Dame had an African American student play the leprechan a few years ago there should be mass protests, etc. Or are you trying to have it both ways again? I'll bet there were people outraged, there always are. I'll bet most people had no issue, especially Irish Americans. Sort of like...drumroll...most Native Americans don't care either in poll after poll after poll.
Your example and TAMUs I have addressed already in this very thread. It is not only stupid, it is not practical. Would I go into a bar in Minnesota with a bunch of Norwegians and say "Hey Viking, get me a drink"? Of course not, that's not how we communicate with people. Just as I wouldn't go to a tall guy and say "hey Giant". Does that make Vikings a bad nickname or Giants? Would you say "Hey Celtic" to a bunch of Scots? Well, if not, then is Celtic not appropriate? Would I go up to an Irish person and call them Irish, or would I just say "Hi Sean, can can I have a beer?" So the example is absurd because that's not how we talk to people, That doesn't mean we can't have symbols, names, etc for sports teams. Quite a different argument.
TAMU has an issue with the Cleveland Browns name as well, so it's hard for me to really understand where he is coming from. Is that because he couldn't go into a bar and say "Hey Brown, get me a drink?" No one would do that anyway, but does that make the Browns name off base...a name that came about because of....drum roll...PAUL BROWN? So I think the straw man example you guys give is just that....a straw man and absolutely absurd because no one communicates like that one to one. Doesn't mean you can't have a team name like the All Blacks from New Zealand, or the Celtics, or the Indians, or the Redskins, or the Fighting Irish or the Braves or the Giants, etc, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 11, 2013, 09:00:01 AM
You think a lot of things that you have been wrong on, so why should this be any different? How's that debt and deficit going...you were spectacular on that one the other day.
Says the guy who was wrong about Deadspin less than 30 minutes ago.
Very odd. Strange. Weird.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 11, 2013, 09:00:01 AM
You think a lot of things that you have been wrong on, so why should this be any different? How's that debt and deficit going...you were spectacular on that one the other day.
Classic Chicos. When someone calls you out on a position on which you are clearly incorrect, what do you do? Change the subject, of course. What a genius.
Answer the question you arrogant buffoon.
Oh, and we weren't arguing the debt/deficit in any way. You introduced that as yet another diversion. We were conversing about whether one faction of one part of the government should attempt to subvert the constitution in order to change legislation they don't have the votes to repeal. Not expecting an answer on that one either...
Racial stereotypes aside, both the New York Jews and San Francisco Chinamen hats are awesome, but then again, so is Chief Wahoo. Lets not let cultural sensitivity override great artistic work.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 11, 2013, 09:14:05 AM
Classic Chicos. When someone calls you out on a position on which you are clearly incorrect, what do you do? Change the subject, of course. What a genius.
Answer the question you arrogant buffoon.
Oh, and we weren't arguing the debt/deficit in any way. You introduced that as yet another diversion. We were conversing about whether one faction of one part of the government should attempt to subvert the constitution in order to change legislation they don't have the votes to repeal. Not expecting an answer on that one either...
Why don't you go back and read it....or who is the baffoon. I did answer the question....AGAIN. LOL
Quote from: JWags85 on October 11, 2013, 09:27:00 AM
Racial stereotypes aside, both the New York Jews and San Francisco Chinamen hats are awesome, but then again, so is Chief Wahoo. Lets not let cultural sensitivity override great artistic work.
Exactly. There is a whole business model here for people with pride and a sense of comedy.....outraged people need not purchase.