Interesting article on legislation just enacted in Wisconsin protecting "race based" mascots.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-mascot-wisconsin-20131219,0,3040038.story
Interesting. Could be some 1st Amendment issues with requiring a 10% threshold to legitimize a complaint against a public institution.
How can this be considered racist??? Yikes...
Quote from: The Love House on December 20, 2013, 08:23:04 AM
How can this be considered racist??? Yikes...
It isn't. It is PC.
Quote from: MURFC on December 19, 2013, 08:07:39 PM
Interesting article on legislation just enacted in Wisconsin protecting "race based" mascots.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-mascot-wisconsin-20131219,0,3040038.story
Would not have affect Marquette at all.... only applies to public schools.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 19, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
Interesting. Could be some 1st Amendment issues with requiring a 10% threshold to legitimize a complaint against a public institution.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to voice your opinion, it doesn't give you the right to force someone else to change their perspective just because you don't like it (although this is a common misinterpretation of our Constitution).
Nevertheless, when less than 10% of a population agrees on a contrary position, I'd be willing to bet that very few of their of their positions have any legitimacy.
My avatar would solve everything.
Quote from: Benny B on December 20, 2013, 09:02:28 AM
...it doesn't give you the right to force someone else to change their perspective just because you don't like it...
Dont' tell that to the LGBT community.
Quote from: The Love House on December 20, 2013, 09:08:03 AM
Dont' tell that to the LGBT community.
Now there you go, not showing the proper respect/support to that "community"
Quote from: Benny B on December 20, 2013, 09:02:28 AM
Would not have affect Marquette at all.... only applies to public schools.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to voice your opinion, it doesn't give you the right to force someone else to change their perspective just because you don't like it (although this is a common misinterpretation of our Constitution).
Nevertheless, when less than 10% of a population agrees on a contrary position, I'd be willing to bet that very few of their of their positions have any legitimacy.
Prior to this law all that was needed was
1 individual to object, which is ridiculous
Quote from: TallTitan34 on December 20, 2013, 09:03:06 AM
My avatar would solve everything.
exactly, but that makes too much sense.
Quote from: hairyworthen on December 20, 2013, 09:11:36 AM
Prior to this law all that was needed was 1 individual to object, which is ridiculous
Isn't that how the world works today...it just takes one
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 20, 2013, 09:13:34 AM
Isn't that how the world works today...it just takes one
sadly
How about we just go with a color or something like that.....What?
nevermind
Quote from: TallTitan34 on December 20, 2013, 09:03:06 AM
My avatar would solve everything.
Agreed.
We must never give up hope.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on December 20, 2013, 09:03:06 AM
My avatar would solve everything.
I would hope so.
However when the cameras pan the crowd and show random white boy in the front row with some sort of fake headress (which I have seen the last two years), it only reinforces the beliefs of those who don't think Marquette can get past the imagery.
And willie, that mascot is completely racist. Completely.
I find this photo from the 1974 championship game to be offensive as well. NO ONE should be allowed to wear pants like that!
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 09:52:07 AM
I would hope so.
However when the cameras pan the crowd and show random white boy in the front row with some sort of fake headress (which I have seen the last two years), it only reinforces the beliefs of those who don't think Marquette can get past the imagery.
And willie, that mascot is completely racist. Completely.
Thank you for your lecture on PC, Sultan, who has no credibility. PC is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you say a guy wearing a fake headdress is racist doesn't make it so. But then again, when you aspire to be the thought police, whatever you say goes.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 09:52:07 AM
I would hope so.
However when the cameras pan the crowd and show random white boy in the front row with some sort of fake headress (which I have seen the last two years), it only reinforces the beliefs of those who don't think Marquette can get past the imagery.
And willie, that mascot is completely racist. Completely.
Yep Just like the ND Mascot is offensive to the Irish; the Redskin nickname is racist; the Fla. State mascot is racist; the Minn. Viking is offensive to Swedes/Norwegians; Warhawks are racist; etc. etc. The Thought Police are coming and we will be made to see their way. C'mon man, you need to lighten up a bit, or is your thong too tight?
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 11:34:36 AM
Thank you for your lecture on PC, Sultan, who has no credibility. PC is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you say a guy wearing a fake headdress is racist doesn't make it so. But then again, when you aspire to be the thought police, whatever you say goes.
Reading. Is. Fundamental.
I never said the guy wearing the headress was racist. I said it reinforces the MU decision-makers' beliefs that we cannot escape the native imagery. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it doesn't send the type of message that I think they are trying to send.
I said that Willie Wampum was racist. And it was. Pretty much everyone associated with the University back when they ditched him in the early 70s believed that to be the case. That's why they ditched it.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 11:34:36 AM
Thank you for your lecture on PC, Sultan, who has no credibility. PC is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you say a guy wearing a fake headdress is racist doesn't make it so. But then again, when you aspire to be the thought police, whatever you say goes.
Dude, why are you so angry all of the time?
All you do on this forum is bitch and complain about EVERYTHING.
Maybe it's time to find a hobby you actually like.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
Reading. Is. Fundamental.
I never said the guy wearing the headress was racist. I said it reinforces the MU decision-makers' beliefs that we cannot escape the native imagery. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it doesn't send the type of message that I think they are trying to send.
I said that Willie Wampum was racist. And it was. Pretty much everyone associated with the University back when they ditched him in the early 70s believed that to be the case. That's why they ditched it.
Obviously racist mascot. If willie can't see that, he simply has his fingers in his ears and his eyes shut.
Nothing to do with PC. In fact, I'm not sure he understands the concept.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 20, 2013, 12:10:49 PM
Dude, why are you so angry all of the time?
All you do on this forum is bitch and complain about EVERYTHING.
Maybe it's time to find a hobby you actually like.
You must know the answer to this.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 20, 2013, 12:10:49 PM
Dude, why are you so angry all of the time?
All you do on this forum is bitch and complain about EVERYTHING.
Maybe it's time to find a hobby you actually like.
I've been wondering this since I started reading Scoop
Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 19, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
Interesting. Could be some 1st Amendment issues with requiring a 10% threshold to legitimize a complaint against a public institution.
What about the rights of the vast majority?
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 11:34:36 AM
PC is in the eye of the beholder.
You are absolutely right. PC is in the eye of the beholder. But the only beholder that matters is the one who is being stereotyped against. Someone of native american heritage has the right to look at Willie Wampum and say that is racist or not racist. You, as a non-native american (I assume) has no right to say whether or not Willie was PC or racist. A racist will very rarely consider themselves racist. Most are ignorant of how their words/actions are perceived by people of different populations.
Quote from: keefe on December 20, 2013, 01:51:32 PM
What about the rights of the vast majority?
The rights of the vast majority don't need the same level of protection. The status quo already favors them
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
Reading. Is. Fundamental.
I never said the guy wearing the headress was racist. I said it reinforces the MU decision-makers' beliefs that we cannot escape the native imagery. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it doesn't send the type of message that I think they are trying to send.
I said that Willie Wampum was racist. And it was. Pretty much everyone associated with the University back when they ditched him in the early 70s believed that to be the case. That's why they ditched it.
Just for the record; who are your sources that "pretty much everyone associated...believed that to be the case. You were there in the 70's and participated in that I guess. You made the reference to white guy in fake headdress. And is that why the name Warrior was discontinued? Because that was racist. That is what I was referring to. But go ahead and continue with your thought police pomposity.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 20, 2013, 12:10:49 PM
Dude, why are you so angry all of the time?
All you do on this forum is bitch and complain about EVERYTHING.
Maybe it's time to find a hobby you actually like.
I have found a hobby. Objecting to images that are offensive. That seems to be the rage today. And one you subscribe to.
Incidentally, using the tag name Guns and Ammo is not PC and is objectionable. It depicts violence and killing which are unacceptable to almost all.
willie, you are simply hopeless
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
Just for the record; who are your sources that "pretty much everyone associated...believed that to be the case. You were there in the 70's and participated in that I guess. You made the reference to white guy in fake headdress. And is that why the name Warrior was discontinued? Because that was racist. That is what I was referring to. But go ahead and continue with your thought police pomposity.
You're right, Willie, regarding how people felt back in the day. I graduated in 1970, the year that picture of Willie Wampum was taken. To us at the time, racism was what was going on overtly in Selma and Birmingham and in the shadows in Chicago and Milwaukee. Willie Wampum was a silly caricature who didn't bother anyone I knew. You couldn't, can't and shouldn't compare the two. That said, he was a thoughtless and demeaning caricature of real people, so when the issue came to the fore I had no difficulty kissing him good bye. I always felt that losing "Warriors" was an exercise in PC but that Willie had to go. What's your take?
Is the term Redneck racist? Been hearing that a lot the last two days.....apparently that term is ok. It's all so confusing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 20, 2013, 07:44:42 PM
Is the term Redneck racist? Been hearing that a lot the last two days.....apparently that term is ok. It's all so confusing.
I haven't looked up the definition but my guess is that like Redskin it's an offensive term. So I'd at the very least be against using it as a nickname for a professional or college team. You'd be okay with it, I guess.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 20, 2013, 08:08:14 PM
I haven't looked up the definition but my guess is that like Redskin it's an offensive term. So I'd at the very least be against using it as a nickname for a professional or college team. You'd be okay with it, I guess.
That's why it all so confusing. ;) But the irony in it all is hearing people the last two days losing their minds about how bigoted some people are and then calling those people rednecks. Sometimes you just can't script it any better.
Merry Christmas America
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 20, 2013, 08:10:47 PM
That's why it all so confusing. ;) But the irony in it all is hearing people the last two days losing their minds about how bigoted some people are and then calling those people rednecks. Sometimes you just can't script it any better.
Merry Christmas America
I get what you're saying, and you're right. There is absolutely an element on the left who attack what they see as bigotry with bigotry of their own. It's absurd. And so is that element on the right who think that objecting to the use of a by definition derogatory term for a race of people is nothing more than PC nonsense. Lots of crazies on both sides, all right.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 20, 2013, 08:10:47 PM
That's why it all so confusing. ;) But the irony in it all is hearing people the last two days losing their minds about how bigoted some people are and then calling those people rednecks. Sometimes you just can't script it any better.
Merry Christmas America
Can't say that. Not all of America is Christian, a'ina?
Ya know, back in the day, ya couldn't tell someone they were ugly. Now, ya can't tell anyone they're good lookin' either.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 20, 2013, 08:41:27 PM
Ya know, back in the day, ya couldn't tell someone they were ugly. Now, ya can't tell anyone they're good lookin' either.
Depends who is doing the sayin....some folks get a free pass to say whatever the hell they want. Others, can't think something without being called out, or if they do say something it will be twisted and examined and ultimately determined to have meant something that was never said or even remotely implied. The filters people have is most interesting.
Truer words were never spoken.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 20, 2013, 08:41:27 PM
Ya know, back in the day, ya couldn't tell someone they were ugly. Now, ya can't tell anyone they're good lookin' either.
True that.
We're startin' to sound like a bunch of old farts pinin' for the good ol' days, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 20, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
We're startin' to sound like a bunch of old farts pinin' for the good ol' days, hey?
Well, we are, so I guess sometimes we do.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 20, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
We're startin' to sound like a bunch of old farts pinin' for the good ol' days, hey?
From a young alum's POV...yep :D
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 20, 2013, 03:11:11 PM
You're right, Willie, regarding how people felt back in the day. I graduated in 1970, the year that picture of Willie Wampum was taken. To us at the time, racism was what was going on overtly in Selma and Birmingham and in the shadows in Chicago and Milwaukee. Willie Wampum was a silly caricature who didn't bother anyone I knew. You couldn't, can't and shouldn't compare the two. That said, he was a thoughtless and demeaning caricature of real people, so when the issue came to the fore I had no difficulty kissing him good bye. I always felt that losing "Warriors" was an exercise in PC but that Willie had to go. What's your take?
Willie Wampum never really bothered me, and maybe because I was in the Military from 67-70 and did not follow MU as well during that period. Never really thought about it and that was well before the internet/twitter etc., where others opinions were not well known. But getting rid of the name Warriors was just plain idiotic and in my opinion going overboard with PC. There is nothing racist about Warrior, and Golden Eagles is lame.
Man, to get bent out of shape over Warriors is way overboard PC. What about Warhawks, Blackhawks, Seminoles, Vikings, Fightin' Irish, Redskins, Cherokees etc? Look at some of the pro Teams: Jazz (Hmmm), Warriors, etc. People could object to those also. Just Stupid.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
Just for the record; who are your sources that "pretty much everyone associated...believed that to be the case. You were there in the 70's and participated in that I guess. You made the reference to white guy in fake headdress. And is that why the name Warrior was discontinued? Because that was racist. That is what I was referring to. But go ahead and continue with your thought police pomposity.
No one is telling you what to think. I know you would really like to think that you are a martyr to some higher cause of free thought, but that is not the issue here.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 21, 2013, 09:57:24 AM
Willie Wampum never really bothered me, and maybe because I was in the Military from 67-70 and did not follow MU as well during that period. Never really thought about it and that was well before the internet/twitter etc., where others opinions were not well known. But getting rid of the name Warriors was just plain idiotic and in my opinion going overboard with PC. There is nothing racist about Warrior, and Golden Eagles is lame.
Man, to get bent out of shape over Warriors is way overboard PC. What about Warhawks, Blackhawks, Seminoles, Vikings, Fightin' Irish, Redskins, Cherokees etc? Look at some of the pro Teams: Jazz (Hmmm), Warriors, etc. People could object to those also. Just Stupid.
No one here is getting bent out of shape over the name Warriors. The problem was Willie Wampum.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 20, 2013, 08:41:27 PM
Ya know, back in the day, ya couldn't tell someone they were ugly. Now, ya can't tell anyone they're good lookin' either.
Brent Musberger?
Quote from: Benny B on December 20, 2013, 09:02:28 AM
Would not have affect Marquette at all.... only applies to public schools.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to voice your opinion, it doesn't give you the right to force someone else to change their perspective just because you don't like it (although this is a common misinterpretation of our Constitution).
Nevertheless, when less than 10% of a population agrees on a contrary position, I'd be willing to bet that very few of their of their positions have any legitimacy.
Right, we are actually saying the same thing but viewing it differently. Requiring 10% of a group, as opposed to a single American citizen, in order to voice an opinion to the government is (arguably) unconstitutional. The argument is that requiring 10%, or any other threshold, for an individual to protest the government creates a chilling factor.
We'll see. Things like this usually end up in the court system and con law scholars much smarter than us sort it out.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 11:43:11 AM
Yep Just like the ND Mascot is offensive to the Irish; the Redskin nickname is racist; the Fla. State mascot is racist; the Minn. Viking is offensive to Swedes/Norwegians; Warhawks are racist; etc. etc. The Thought Police are coming and we will be made to see their way. C'mon man, you need to lighten up a bit, or is your thong too tight?
ND analogy is not apt. Notre Dame was founded by Irish Americans and the nickname is a reference to themselves. One could argue, to a lesser degree, the same thing about the Minnesota Vikings and the swedes/norwegians that live up there.
Last time I checked there weren't any Native Americans affiliated with the Washington Redskins. Not many at Marquette, either.
Redskins and the Willie Wampum caricature are absolutely racist. If one wants to make an argument that these mascots should be permitted in the face of that racism, that's one thing. There are some fair arguments that Willie Wampum/Warriors nickname and the Redskins nickname are not meant to be offensive and in a way even honor the toughness of the Native American people. But to entirely deny the racist element on those two fronts is just absurd.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 20, 2013, 07:44:42 PM
Is the term Redneck racist? Been hearing that a lot the last two days.....apparently that term is ok. It's all so confusing.
Except that native americans have been subject to widespread discrimination and systematic oppression for centuries. So, no, the term "redneck" isn't as negative, hurtful, and evocative as ones like "redskin."
Racism results in oppression and discrimination. "Reverse racism" (for the record, I hate this term) results in hurt feelings and message board whining. This is why most people are more passionate about ending the usage of terms like "redskin" than "redneck."
Quote from: MUStudent on December 21, 2013, 12:43:55 PM
Except that native americans have been subject to widespread discrimination and systematic oppression for centuries. So, no, the term "redneck" isn't as negative, hurtful, and evocative as ones like "redskin."
Racism results in oppression and discrimination. "Reverse racism" (for the record, I hate this term) results in hurt feelings and message board whining. This is why most people are more passionate about ending the usage of terms like "redskin" than "redneck."
I rarely agree with chicos, but he is right. Redneck is just as offensive as any other derogatory term. In many parts of the country it results in oppression and discrimination...these parts do have reverse racism that affect a lot more than hurt feelings...maybe you just haven't been to those parts.
Others are also correct in that willie wampum was a problem...warriors less of one.
These arguments get repetitive where people are driven to extreme (and ridiculous) stances one way or the other. Answer is almost always in the middle.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 21, 2013, 12:43:55 PM
Except that native americans have been subject to widespread discrimination and systematic oppression for centuries. So, no, the term "redneck" isn't as negative, hurtful, and evocative as ones like "redskin."
Racism results in oppression and discrimination. "Reverse racism" (for the record, I hate this term) results in hurt feelings and message board whining. This is why most people are more passionate about ending the usage of terms like "redskin" than "redneck."
Ah yes, the degrees. Always fun. How do you know it isn't as hurtful. Maybe there is ONE person that is in the south that is deeply offended. It only takes one is what I was told here...just one. I just find it ironic that those claiming racism and bigotry would use a word that SOME (at least one) may find derogatory, bigoted, etc. Remember when we played the definition game in the dictionary not long ago with Redskins and the argument was that the dictionary says it is an offensive and derogatory term. That was the gold standard used here and by many individuals making that argument. It's interesting, if I go down that same path with the Redneck definition, it says: "Redneck is a
derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers". Huh. Who would have thought it. Isn't this fun?
And by the way, MOST people are NOT passionate about ending the term redskin...that's what polls are for and show that isn't the case. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Ah yes, the degrees. Always fun. How do you know it isn't as hurtful. Maybe there is ONE person that is in the south that is deeply offended. It only takes one is what I was told here...just one. I just find it ironic that those claiming racism and bigotry would use a word that SOME (at least one) may find derogatory, bigoted, etc. Remember when we played the definition game in the dictionary not long ago with Redskins and the argument was that the dictionary says it is an offensive and derogatory term. That was the gold standard used here and by many individuals making that argument. It's interesting, if I go down that same path with the Redneck definition, it says: "Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers". Huh. Who would have thought it. Isn't this fun?
You don't understand. It isn't an issue of "the degrees." Native americans were oppressed in large part due to their cultural heritage, often perceived by many by the color of their skin. This oppression, for example, included expulsion from their land and woefully unequal access to basic rights. There is no parallel experience for southern, white Americans (I expect your next post to demonstrate a depressing lack of perception by refuting this point). When invoking the term "redskin" in a conversation, you make reference to this atrocious, unjust past that millions of native americans experienced and are still affected by today.
I would never advocate for the use of a word like "redneck." I think it generally is used discriminatorily. As such, I don't think it should be used to name sports teams either. That isn't to say, though, that it's equally offensive as "redneck."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
And by the way, MOST people are NOT passionate about ending the term redskin...that's what polls are for and show that isn't the case. ;)
Learn to read.
I think you are missing the overall point. A number of those claiming Redskins is racist, insensitive, derogatory are the same ones flinging out the word Redneck. I find it ironic, perhaps you don't. Some rules apply to some, but not to others.
How can you say that rural, uneducated, white manual laborers - or "rednecks" - haven't been discriminated against or oppressed? Rural laborers have been the subject of atrocious systematic oppression throughout the entire course of civilization. I believe that the term "redneck" actually originated to describe white sharecroppers. You wanna talk about systematic oppression? Check out James Agee's "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" .
If you are going to go down that logical road, nothing is safe.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 21, 2013, 12:43:55 PM
Except that native americans have been subject to widespread discrimination and systematic oppression for centuries. So, no, the term "redneck" isn't as negative, hurtful, and evocative as ones like "redskin."
Racism results in oppression and discrimination. "Reverse racism" (for the record, I hate this term) results in hurt feelings and message board whining. This is why most people are more passionate about ending the usage of terms like "redskin" than "redneck."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 02:23:21 PM
I think you are missing the overall point. A number of those claiming Redskins is racist, insensitive, derogatory are the same ones flinging out the word Redneck. I find it ironic, perhaps you don't. Some rules apply to some, but not to others.
The point of the thread debate was to determine whether words like "redskins" should be used as sports team names.
But to your sentiment, I don't find it particularly ironic. I find it predictable. If my people were on the short end of systematic discrimination for all of recent history, I, too, may have some choice words to say/invent about those who put me there. And I don't think that makes it right, but it does make it understandable. And for all the reasons I previously mentioned, still not nearly as hurtful.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 01:27:43 PM
Ah yes, the degrees. Always fun. How do you know it isn't as hurtful. Maybe there is ONE person that is in the south that is deeply offended. It only takes one is what I was told here...just one. I just find it ironic that those claiming racism and bigotry would use a word that SOME (at least one) may find derogatory, bigoted, etc. Remember when we played the definition game in the dictionary not long ago with Redskins and the argument was that the dictionary says it is an offensive and derogatory term. That was the gold standard used here and by many individuals making that argument. It's interesting, if I go down that same path with the Redneck definition, it says: "Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers". Huh. Who would have thought it. Isn't this fun?
And by the way, MOST people are NOT passionate about ending the term redskin...that's what polls are for and show that isn't the case. ;)
Let's see if I've got this straight:
1. Redneck is by definition a derogatory slang term. Using it is bigoted and racist.
2. Redskin is by definition a derogatory slang term. Using it is not bigoted or racist because polling data shows that most people are not passionate about ending it's use.
Wow.
Quote from: ResidentBrown on December 21, 2013, 02:27:47 PM
How can you say that rural, uneducated, white manual laborers - or "rednecks" - haven't been discriminated against or oppressed? Rural laborers have been the subject of atrocious systematic oppression throughout the entire course of civilization. I believe that the term "redneck" actually originated to describe white sharecroppers. You wanna talk about systematic oppression? Check out James Agee's "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" .
If you are going to go down that logical road, nothing is safe.
These are good points, and I have already mentioned I don't support the use of a term like "redneck" in general conversation or as a sports team name. I also would argue that the type of oppression that these people face(d) is/was mainly economic and less political (although certainly partly political). Their status wasn't predetermined by the color of their skin or cultural background.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 21, 2013, 02:16:29 PM
You don't understand. It isn't an issue of "the degrees." Native americans were oppressed in large part due to their cultural heritage, often perceived by many by the color of their skin. This oppression, for example, included expulsion from their land and woefully unequal access to basic rights. There is no parallel experience for southern, white Americans (I expect your next post to demonstrate a depressing lack of perception by refuting this point). When invoking the term "redskin" in a conversation, you make reference to this atrocious, unjust past that millions of native americans experienced and are still affected by today.
I would never advocate for the use of a word like "redneck." I think it generally is used discriminatorily. As such, I don't think it should be used to name sports teams either. That isn't to say, though, that it's equally offensive as "redneck."
Learn to read.
Well stated.
And Willie, thanks for the chuckles you provided while I was catching up on this thread. Holy moly.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 21, 2013, 02:34:46 PM
Let's see if I've got this straight:
1. Redneck is by definition a derogatory slang term. Using it is bigoted and racist.
2. Redskin is by definition a derogatory slang term. Using it is not bigoted or racist because polling data shows that most people are not passionate about ending it's use.
Wow.
LOL....things are clearly flying over your head today. Try again, or maybe read again and I'll highlight my sarcasm from the very first post so you can follow along.
Or I can summarize it for you....neither term do I have an issue with at all. That's me. I find it ironic, however, that those bitching about Redskins are the first to use Redneck, another derogatory term. Oh the irony.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 21, 2013, 02:31:15 PM
The point of the thread debate was to determine whether words like "redskins" should be used as sports team names.
But to your sentiment, I don't find it particularly ironic. I find it predictable. If my people were on the short end of systematic discrimination for all of recent history, I, too, may have some choice words to say/invent about those who put me there. And I don't think that makes it right, but it does make it understandable. And for all the reasons I previously mentioned, still not nearly as hurtful.
Of course not. LOL
My favorite is watching the MSNBC crew the last few days with their heads exploding about the Duck Dynasty guy....these same guys calling him a redneck....these same talking heads unbelievably miffed at Redskins name last month and yet using a derogatory term the last two days (you can't make it up)....these same guys having no issue with Al Sharpton's crap....the hypocrisy has been hilarious. You know it's bad when even Slate is calling out their own side for the double standards. LOL.
If that side of the spectrum is going to play the high mantle card, the elitist "we are better" than the rest of America card, if you're going to pretend to lecture the unwashed you might want to not commit the same boner they are so outraged at by doing the same thing. Or, better yet, pretend not to be outraged by either word and have a beer. That's what I'm doing.
The Redneck Redskins. I like it, great name.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 08:53:18 PM
Of course not. LOL
My favorite is watching the MSNBC crew the last few days with their heads exploding about the Duck Dynasty guy....these same guys calling him a redneck....these same talking heads unbelievably miffed at Redskins name last month and yet using a derogatory term the last two days (you can't make it up)....these same guys having no issue with Al Sharpton's crap....the hypocrisy has been hilarious. You know it's bad when even Slate is calling out their own side for the double standards. LOL.
MSNBC? You mean the same network who wouldn't fire the guy who said someone should defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth?
Aka a brown storm.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 21, 2013, 02:31:15 PM
The point of the thread debate was to determine whether words like "redskins" should be used as sports team names.
But to your sentiment, I don't find it particularly ironic. I find it predictable. If my people were on the short end of systematic discrimination for all of recent history, I, too, may have some choice words to say/invent about those who put me there. And I don't think that makes it right, but it does make it understandable. And for all the reasons I previously mentioned, still not nearly as hurtful.
Yes. Repeat the same infraction you have an issue with. That makes perfect sense and evens things out doesn't it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 08:53:18 PM
Of course not. LOL
My favorite is watching the MSNBC crew the last few days with their heads exploding about the Duck Dynasty guy....these same guys calling him a redneck....these same talking heads unbelievably miffed at Redskins name last month and yet using a derogatory term the last two days (you can't make it up)....these same guys having no issue with Al Sharpton's crap....the hypocrisy has been hilarious. You know it's bad when even Slate is calling out their own side for the double standards. LOL.
If that side of the spectrum is going to play the high mantle card, the elitist "we are better" than the rest of America card, if you're going to pretend to lecture the unwashed you might want to not commit the same boner they are so outraged at by doing the same thing. Or, better yet, pretend not to be outraged by either word and have a beer. That's what I'm doing.
The Redneck Redskins. I like it, great name.
I know you don't like it, but the rules are different for different populations. Groups in the majority have inherent privileges that just come with being a member of a majority group. For example, a white man never has to worry about being accused of a crime just because he was walking in an affluent neighborhood late at night. People of color do. A male teacher who is strict is referred to as having high standards or being disciplined. A female teacher who does the same thing is labeled a beotch. A straight couple never has to worry about holding hands in public. A gay couple has to worry about that constantly.
As MUStudent pointed out (said it much better than I could, btw) terms like redskin, chink, or fa**ot (insert whatever derogatory term you want) come with inherent oppression and to use them is continuing that oppression. It is really hard to oppress straight, white, men. We are pretty much always in power, no matter what the situation. So like MUStudent said, terms like Redneck shouldn't be used because they are derogatory, but it just doesn't carry the same bite that some of these others do. The reason being because even if they come from poor, disadvantaged backgrounds, they are still straight, white, men and as such, still carry a lot of privilege.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 08:46:05 PM
LOL....things are clearly flying over your head today. Try again, or maybe read again and I'll highlight my sarcasm from the very first post so you can follow along.
Or I can summarize it for you....neither term do I have an issue with at all. That's me. I find it ironic, however, that those bitching about Redskins are the first to use Redneck, another derogatory term. Oh the irony.
I'm consistent. I don't like slang derogatory terms for people being used as nicknames for sports teams. For me, the Redskins, the Rednecks and the Redneck Redskins are out.
You say you're consistent and don't mind their use. Let's see how consistent. You ok with the "C" word as a nickname for a women's basketball team? It's only a slang derogatory word for women, so you shouldn't be bothered. And of course you'd be ok with nicknames like but not limited to Ni$$ers, Spics, Honkies, Porch Monkeys, White Trash, Jungle Bunnies, Chinks, Dot Heads, Japs, Kikes, etc. Yeah, lots of solid slang derogatory possibilities. And to defend one is to defend them all. Picking which slang derogatory nicknames are ok and which aren't is arbitrary and hypocrisy personified.
So I guess you're ok with all of them. Or maybe we can do a poll to determine which slurs are ok - to the extent that a slur can be ok, that is. LOL
Quote from: ResidentBrown on December 21, 2013, 02:27:47 PM
How can you say that rural, uneducated, white manual laborers - or "rednecks" - haven't been discriminated against or oppressed? Rural laborers have been the subject of atrocious systematic oppression throughout the entire course of civilization. I believe that the term "redneck" actually originated to describe white sharecroppers. You wanna talk about systematic oppression? Check out James Agee's "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" .
If you are going to go down that logical road, nothing is safe.
Please change your name on this site. How dare you!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 20, 2013, 08:08:14 PM
I haven't looked up the definition but my guess is that like Redskin it's an offensive term. So I'd at the very least be against using it as a nickname for a professional or college team. You'd be okay with it, I guess.
Like Jackson Browne I too have a Redneck Friend. He has been a true friend and never let me down. Granted, he is a fellow who craves the night life but his convivial bonhomie has ensured fascinating adventure. And whether the evening involves cultural exploration or simply an intense drinking session my Redneck Friend has stood by me, tall, strong, alert, vigilant, and ready for any eventuality. Ever loyal, he continues to greet me each morning with an enthusiastic salute. I have always had his back, too, and endeavored to satisfy his various needs as often as possible. In no way has he bristled at his nickname. Redneck Friend is a sobriquet he wears with tremendous pride. I see no problem with its use.
Quote from: keefe on December 22, 2013, 03:58:55 AM
Like Jackson Browne I too have a Redneck Friend. He has been a true friend and never let me down. Granted, he is a fellow who craves the night life but his convivial bonhomie has ensured fascinating adventure. And whether the evening involves cultural exploration or simply an intense drinking session my Redneck Friend has stood by me, tall, strong, alert, vigilant, and ready for any eventuality. Ever loyal, he continues to greet me each morning with an enthusiastic salute. I have always had his back, too, and endeavored to satisfy his various needs as often as possible. In no way has he bristled at his nickname. Redneck Friend is a sobriquet he wears with tremendous pride. I see no problem with its use.
I see Redneck as a term of endearment, quite frankly and so do most of the folks I know that fit the description. My brother in law, part Native American, feels the same way about Redskins. But again, it only takes one.
What I find so funny right now with the heads exploding over the latest poutrage is there use of Redneck and their association that it means uneducated. They might want to look at the person they are saying that about and his educational accomplishments, along with his business and familial accomplishments. But they are still going to opine about the great unwashed among us, even if it means using verbiage that supposedly they are against. It truly is fun to watch and to remind them of the irony and watch the back peddaling.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 20, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Well, we are, so I guess sometimes we do.
Yeah--refresh my memory--didn't Howard Cosell, that paragon of Liberal PC--refer to some guy as a "little monkey" that caused a bit of storm back in the day.
And didn't Bobby Knight say in an interview with Connie Chung say that "if it is inevitable that you are going to be raped, you might as well lay back and enjoy it."?
Ah yes, the good old days. At least to some people.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 22, 2013, 03:06:06 AM
I'm consistent. I don't like slang derogatory terms for people being used as nicknames for sports teams. For me, the Redskins, the Rednecks and the Redneck Redskins are out.
You say you're consistent and don't mind their use. Let's see how consistent. You ok with the "C" word as a nickname for a women's basketball team? It's only a slang derogatory word for women, so you shouldn't be bothered. And of course you'd be ok with nicknames like but not limited to Ni$$ers, Spics, Honkies, Porch Monkeys, White Trash, Jungle Bunnies, Chinks, Dot Heads, Japs, Kikes, etc. Yeah, lots of solid slang derogatory possibilities. And to defend one is to defend them all. Picking which slang derogatory nicknames are ok and which aren't is arbitrary and hypocrisy personified.
So I guess you're ok with all of them. Or maybe we can do a poll to determine which slurs are ok - to the extent that a slur can be ok, that is. LOL
You still cranky from last night I see.
Never did I say I was not against some words, did I? I said I had no problem with Redskins, Rednecks and some others. The words you have put forth in your revised, edited argument, are quite different. It was a nice strawman attempt by you, but the logic separation is rather large especially when you again make a leap on something I never said but you imply I did or your inability to infer properly led you there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2013, 10:47:50 AM
You still cranky from last night I see.
Never did I say I was not against some words, did I? I said I had no problem with Redskins, Rednecks and some others. The words you have put forth in your revised, edited argument, are quite different. It was a nice strawman attempt by you, but the logic separation is rather large especially when you again make a leap on something I never said but you imply I did or your inability to infer properly led you there.
Not cranky at all. Just consistent. You mock the "lefties" (justifiably) for being offended by one derogatory slang word for a group (Redskins) but not another (rednecks), but you see nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in being offended by other derogatory slang words for groups (c word, n word, etc.) but not Redskins or Rednecks. So you're every bit as hypocritical and arbitrary as the people you attack. Like them, YOU want to decide which derogatory slurs are acceptable. Pot meet kettle.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 22, 2013, 11:26:10 AM
Not cranky at all. Just consistent. You mock the "lefties" (justifiably) for being offended by one derogatory slang word for a group (Redskins) but not another (rednecks), but you see nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in being offended by other derogatory slang words for groups (c word, n word, etc.) but not Redskins or Rednecks. So you're every bit as hypocritical and arbitrary as the people you attack. Like them, YOU want to decide which derogatory slurs are acceptable. Pot meet kettle.
LOL. Nope. Because I'm not imposing anything on anyone, and certainly don't have a bully pulpit, a microphone, camera, mass audience. I'm not demanding a team change their name, I'm not demanding people get fired because they're on a cooking show and 25 years ago said one of these words, etc, etc.
I'm sure you see the difference....at least I hope you do.
The people that are trying to make "change" and "progress" use these moments when people say these words to demand firings, suspensions, policy changes (NFL team name change) and yet these same people don't do it in other cases. That's the hypocrisy. If you're going out there in the name of whatever to change the world, then don't do exactly what you just got done railing against and demanding people lose their livelihoods over.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 21, 2013, 12:35:44 PM
ND analogy is not apt. Notre Dame was founded by Irish Americans and the nickname is a reference to themselves. One could argue, to a lesser degree, the same thing about the Minnesota Vikings and the swedes/norwegians that live up there.
Last time I checked there weren't any Native Americans affiliated with the Washington Redskins. Not many at Marquette, either.
Redskins and the Willie Wampum caricature are absolutely racist. If one wants to make an argument that these mascots should be permitted in the face of that racism, that's one thing. There are some fair arguments that Willie Wampum/Warriors nickname and the Redskins nickname are not meant to be offensive and in a way even honor the toughness of the Native American people. But to entirely deny the racist element on those two fronts is just absurd.
I can't speak for the nickname, but "notre dame" is French, not English (or Celtic or Latin, for that matter). That said, while I don't know this for sure, I would doubt an Irishman founded ND.
In any case, I still don't really buy that "Fighting Irish" is different than "Redskins." I'm open to changing my mind, but I've heard this for quite sometime and have yet to hear a persuasive argument. If some person (group?) is offended at having their people portrayed as a little red-haired drunkard putting up his dukes, then it is offensive. I can see why someone/group of people would find that offensive.
Claiming one mascot is more offensive than the next because of who created it is a tenuous position to hold, IMO--it leads to biting some big bullets. "Redskins is racist. Wait what? Oh, so the guy who came up with the term had a Cherokee grandfather? Oh...well, on second thought, it's actually not that racist."
I think Mr. Will said it very well today
"...the new biggest American entitlement is the entitlement to go through life without being offended. People think they have a right not to have their feelings hurt, not to have their sensibilities in any way exacerbated. I'd refer them to Jefferson who said, it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or one god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. We have forked for millennia to get to a point where we say the law will protect our possessions and our persons, but not our feelings and people just have to get over it."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2013, 11:41:21 PM
I think Mr. Will said it very well today
"...the new biggest American entitlement is the entitlement to go through life without being offended. People think they have a right not to have their feelings hurt, not to have their sensibilities in any way exacerbated. I'd refer them to Jefferson who said, it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or one god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. We have forked for millennia to get to a point where we say the law will protect our possessions and our persons, but not our feelings and people just have to get over it."
I have always been a fan of George Will. Tremendous commentator. And appreciates the classic elegance of baseball.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on December 22, 2013, 04:25:32 PM
I can't speak for the nickname, but "notre dame" is French, not English (or Celtic or Latin, for that matter). That said, while I don't know this for sure, I would doubt an Irishman founded ND.
In any case, I still don't really buy that "Fighting Irish" is different than "Redskins." I'm open to changing my mind, but I've heard this for quite sometime and have yet to hear a persuasive argument. If some person (group?) is offended at having their people portrayed as a little red-haired drunkard putting up his dukes, then it is offensive. I can see why someone/group of people would find that offensive.
Claiming one mascot is more offensive than the next because of who created it is a tenuous position to hold, IMO--it leads to biting some big bullets. "Redskins is racist. Wait what? Oh, so the guy who came up with the term had a Cherokee grandfather? Oh...well, on second thought, it's actually not that racist."
AC was a little off in his Notre Dame history. Notre Dame was not founded by Irishmen, but it was an irish serving institution. Back in the day, the Irish were a minority popluation in the United States and were discriminated against. Many colleges went so far as to not allow Irishmen to enroll. Seeing a particular need (an untapped target market), Notre Dame began to cater to Irish-Americans. This is one of the reasons why Fighting Irish is different than Redskins. Notre Dame was a bunch of Irishmen naming their mascot after themselves. Redskins is a bunch of white men naming their mascot after a culture they don't belong too. Notre Dame is exactly like UNC Pemboke. They have a waiver from the NCAA to call themselves the Indians. The are a tribal college where more than 33% of their enrollment is Native Americans. Native Americans naming their mascot after their own culture.
2. Fighting Irish is the name of a people, redskin is a derogatory term for a minority population. Now change redskin to Seminoles for example, you have more of an arguement.
3 (and most importantly in my opinion). The Irish are no longer a minority population. Being born Irish no longer affords you inherent disadvantages the same way being born into a minority population does. Naming a team the fighting Irish is the members of the majority deciding to celebrate their heritage as members of the empowered majority. The Washington Redskins are a bunch of white folk deciding to take the culture of a minority population and reduce it to a sideshow at football games. Naming a team the Redskins is an example oppression (albeit unintended oppression). It's really hard to oppress the Irish as they are now in the majority population.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 23, 2013, 12:59:25 AM
UNC Pemboke. They have a waiver from the NCAA to call themselves the Indians.
I'm thinking a man can get a damn fine curry in the UNC Pembroke dorm cafeterias.
(http://taakjhaak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/punjabis-enjoying.jpg)
Quote from: keefe on December 23, 2013, 03:32:34 AM
I'm thinking a man can get a damn fine curry in the UNC Pembroke dorm cafeterias.
(http://taakjhaak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/punjabis-enjoying.jpg)
Models for the new Warrior Uniforms.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 23, 2013, 12:59:25 AM
AC was a little off in his Notre Dame history. Notre Dame was not founded by Irishmen, but it was an irish serving institution. Back in the day, the Irish were a minority popluation in the United States and were discriminated against. Many colleges went so far as to not allow Irishmen to enroll. Seeing a particular need (an untapped target market), Notre Dame began to cater to Irish-Americans. This is one of the reasons why Fighting Irish is different than Redskins. Notre Dame was a bunch of Irishmen naming their mascot after themselves. Redskins is a bunch of white men naming their mascot after a culture they don't belong too. Notre Dame is exactly like UNC Pemboke. They have a waiver from the NCAA to call themselves the Indians. The are a tribal college where more than 33% of their enrollment is Native Americans. Native Americans naming their mascot after their own culture.
2. Fighting Irish is the name of a people, redskin is a derogatory term for a minority population. Now change redskin to Seminoles for example, you have more of an arguement.
3 (and most importantly in my opinion). The Irish are no longer a minority population. Being born Irish no longer affords you inherent disadvantages the same way being born into a minority population does. Naming a team the fighting Irish is the members of the majority deciding to celebrate their heritage as members of the empowered majority. The Washington Redskins are a bunch of white folk deciding to take the culture of a minority population and reduce it to a sideshow at football games. Naming a team the Redskins is an example oppression (albeit unintended oppression). It's really hard to oppress the Irish as they are now in the majority population.
Redskin is also the name of a potato--so we would should all feel outrage at that blatant vegetable racism.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2013, 08:53:18 PM
Of course not. LOL
My favorite is watching the MSNBC crew the last few days with their heads exploding about the Duck Dynasty guy....these same guys calling him a redneck....these same talking heads unbelievably miffed at Redskins name last month and yet using a derogatory term the last two days (you can't make it up)....these same guys having no issue with Al Sharpton's crap....the hypocrisy has been hilarious. You know it's bad when even Slate is calling out their own side for the double standards. LOL.
If that side of the spectrum is going to play the high mantle card, the elitist "we are better" than the rest of America card, if you're going to pretend to lecture the unwashed you might want to not commit the same boner they are so outraged at by doing the same thing. Or, better yet, pretend not to be outraged by either word and have a beer. That's what I'm doing.
The Redneck Redskins. I like it, great name.
This post was fantastic at not responding to anything I wrote and instead being very angry at leftist media. If you were prodding for a defense of outlets like MSNBC and Slate, you won't find it from me. I'm not outraged, and think that plenty of great people support terms like "Redskins." I do not, and enjoy having discussions to promote that viewpoint.
Quote from: elephantraker on December 21, 2013, 09:33:00 PM
Yes. Repeat the same infraction you have an issue with. That makes perfect sense and evens things out doesn't it.
I don't think there's much "sense" involved in racism and reverse racism (again, I hate this term).
I think it's easy for white people to feel defensive and hurt about and have a big problem with the latter. After all, the vast majority of us have never been responsible for the conscious support of discrimination and oppression (especially when it comes to pre-Civil Rights Movements injustice). But that doesn't mean American society has suddenly been made fully equal, or that pain of the past has been washed away. Those problems are still here. And even though people like us weren't around for it, white men built a society that favored themselves (and, to a relatively lesser extent, one that still does today).
So if a person of color sadly or angrily comes to terms with the atrocious past experienced by their ancestors (perhaps ones who are still living) and the senseless inequality that still exists today, I can understand that they may see the still-privileged white people of today as responsible.
That doesn't make it right. It makes it understandable. And it isn't comparable to the discrimination that people of color experience.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2013, 09:37:57 AM
My brother in law, part Native American, feels the same way about Redskins. But again, it only takes one.
Despite what your cousin's friend's mom's coworker who is 10% Native American may believe, no significant portion of the indigenous nation finds the term "redskin" to be endearing.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 22, 2013, 10:44:30 AM
Yeah--refresh my memory--didn't Howard Cosell, that paragon of Liberal PC--refer to some guy as a "little monkey" that caused a bit of storm back in the day.
And didn't Bobby Knight say in an interview with Connie Chung say that "if it is inevitable that you are going to be raped, you might as well lay back and enjoy it."?
Ah yes, the good old days. At least to some people.
Yes, they were in fact the golden days for white American men like yourself. Sounds like you really enjoyed your gift-wrapped spot at the top of the social hierarchy while it lasted.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 23, 2013, 11:41:30 AM
This post was fantastic at not responding to anything I wrote and instead being very angry at leftist media. If you were prodding for a defense of outlets like MSNBC and Slate, you won't find it from me. I'm not outraged, and think that plenty of great people support terms like "Redskins." I do not, and enjoy having discussions to promote that viewpoint.
My first sentence was in response to you.
The rest, was just me opining in general. My apologies for not clarifying.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 23, 2013, 12:14:33 PM
Despite what your cousin's friend's mom's coworker who is 10% Native American may believe, no significant portion of the indigenous nation finds the term "redskin" to be endearing.
Despite your viewpoint, polls of Native Americans say you are wrong....unless you are now saying a MAJORITY is no longer a "significant portion". LOL. So much so, that several Native American schools even use the nickname themselves.
"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."
Begs the question, if so many Native Americans are against it now, why don't those supporting this change do a more recent poll, rather than blasting the last one as "too old" or whatever else they come up with to marginalize it? Or maybe they have done a poll(s), and didn't like the results that came out. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 12:17:05 PM
My first sentence was in response to you.
The rest, was just me opining in general. My apologies for not clarifying.
Gotcha. Didn't realize the angry laughter of a person unwilling to consider that his own perception and system of beliefs may not be perfect constitutes a reply.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 23, 2013, 12:23:52 PM
Gotcha. Didn't realize the angry laughter of a person unwilling to consider that his own perception and system of beliefs may not be perfect constitutes a reply.
Angry laughter....nope, none here. Did you take Psyc 1001 to determine that? There are a few folks here that play Psychologists on this board...you could start a clinic.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
Despite your viewpoint, polls of Native Americans say you are wrong....unless you are now saying a MAJORITY is no longer a "significant portion". LOL. So much so, that several Native American schools even use the nickname themselves.
"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."
Begs the question, if so many Native Americans are against it now, why don't those supporting this change do a more recent poll, rather than blasting the last one as "too old" or whatever else they come up with to marginalize it? Or maybe they have done a poll(s), and didn't like the results that came out. ;)
Did not bother them = They find it endearing?
Also re: your poll:
"...poll neglected to ask some crucial questions. 'Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?'
Sounds like some ineffective polling procedures.
---
Determining if "Redskin" is racist or hurtful can be solved by a very simple test: Would you meet a Native American and refer to them as a "redskin" to their face? I'd hope not.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 12:27:26 PM
Angry laughter....nope, none here. Did you take Psyc 1001 to determine that? There are a few folks here that play Psychologists on this board...you could start a clinic.
My apologies, I somehow misconstrued "lol" in all caps followed by an angry rant to be angry laughter. I never took a PSYC class, I'm afraid. I'm just informed by common sense.
This argument is a microcosm for where this country is today politically. One side is so over the top touchy/feely they see slurs when there are none. To view Warriors, Braves, Indians, Fighting Sioux (or Irish), etc. as derogatory or slurs is as silly. You have to see things that aren't there to take offense. The other side is so concerned with not being PC they tie themselves up in knots trying to turn terms that are by definition derogatory/slurs (Redskins, Chinks Gooks, etc) into something they're not. They deny what is right in front of them to prove their credentials as non PC.
This is so simple. Words have meanings. Look them up. For anyone willing to use a dictionary and just a smidge of common sense this whole topic is simple.
Quote from: MUStudent on December 23, 2013, 12:33:57 PM
Did not bother them = They find it endearing?
Also re: your poll:
"...poll neglected to ask some crucial questions. 'Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?'
Sounds like some ineffective polling procedures.
---
Determining if "Redskin" is racist or hurtful can be solved by a very simple test: Would you meet a Native American and refer to them as a "redskin" to their face? I'd hope not.
Annenburg doing ineffective polling procedures, or you don't like the results of the poll? :D Again, if you are so certain you are right on this along with others opining the same way, one would think a very effective tool would be to run a poll of this critically important issue to Native Americans so there is evidence that the ground swell of support exists. Wonder why that hasn't been done.
Would I attend a Redskin football game at Native American schools with the Redskins nickname the CHOSE for their school and cheer on the Redskins (LOUDLY) and wear a Redskin sweatshirt in the presence of Native Americans. I sure would. Would that be a problem, you know since these folks are so offended by this nickname (to the point they self selected it on their own)? I wouldn't go up to my Uncle, Terry Shaunessy and tell him he is a Fighting Irishman to his face, either, but does that mean I have a problem with the Fighting Irish or that he has a problem with that nickname? Sounds like an argument bridge is missing some of it's supports. ;)
On a side note, I'll be in Pasadena for the BCS Championship game with Florida State coming into town. I am looking forward to hearing and seeing the Warhawk Chop in all of its glory in that stadium, their first visit ever to the Rose Bowl. I'm sure someone will be offended, I'm sure someone will be outraged....I'm sure I won't care one bit. Maybe I'll wear a tshirt with a cross in a jar of urine, or better yet a Martin Bashir mask....someone will surely get spun up.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 23, 2013, 12:52:24 PM
This argument is a microcosm for where this country is today politically. One side is so over the top touchy/feely they see slurs when there are none. To view Warriors, Braves, Indians, Fighting Sioux (or Irish), etc. as derogatory or slurs is as silly. You have to see things that aren't there to take offense. The other side is so concerned with not being PC they tie themselves up in knots trying to turn terms that are by definition derogatory/slurs (Redskins, Chinks Gooks, etc) into something they're not. They deny what is right in front of them to prove their credentials as non PC.
This is so simple. Words have meanings. Look them up. For anyone willing to use a dictionary and just a smidge of common sense this whole topic is simple.
Except that we also know that certain folks get to write history, define meanings of words, etc. When the director of the Smithsonian Institute's Linguistics division has a definition about Redskins that doesn't make it into that definition, why is that the case? He's an expert in his field. So who is determining the definitions? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who is outraged, especially when those that are supposed to be outraged (in poll after poll) prove that they are not....gasp....outraged or offended. Have you ever thought that the guilt factor here in this country that plays into so much of this BS has become so consumed with it's own power to decide who should be offended that they missed the most basic element, which is finding out if it is THEY that are offended or the actual peoples that they THINK should be offended.
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 01:01:15 PM
Annenburg doing ineffective polling procedures, or you don't like the results of the poll? :D Again, if you are so certain you are right on this along with others opining the same way, one would think a very effective tool would be to run a poll of this critically important issue to Native Americans so there is evidence that the ground swell of support exists. Wonder why that hasn't been done.
Would I attend a Redskin football game at Native American schools with the Redskins nickname the CHOSE for their school and cheer on the Redskins (LOUDLY) and wear a Redskin sweatshirt in the presence of Native Americans. I sure would. Would that be a problem, you know since these folks are so offended by this nickname (to the point they self selected it on their own)? I wouldn't go up to my Uncle, Terry Shaunessy and tell him he is a Fighting Irishman to his face, either, but does that mean I have a problem with the Fighting Irish or that he has a problem with that nickname? Sounds like an argument bridge is missing some of it's supports. ;)
On a side note, I'll be in Pasadena for the BCS Championship game with Florida State coming into town. I am looking forward to hearing and seeing the Warhawk Chop in all of its glory in that stadium, their first visit ever to the Rose Bowl. I'm sure someone will be offended, I'm sure someone will be outraged....I'm sure I won't care one bit. Maybe I'll wear a tshirt with a cross in a jar of urine, or better yet a Martin Bashir mask....someone will surely get spun up.
Those are very simple questions that any legitimate pollster would have drawn up within 30 seconds of conceiving the idea to create a poll. You can try to leverage the results of a silly, nine-year-old poll all you'd like, but what really matters here is how you answered my question (or, as is often the case with you, how you didn't).
I'm not sure from where this hypothetical situation you've farted into existence comes, but it really tells us nothing. This debate is very simple. Three questions should be asked:
1. Is "Redskins" traditionally racist or hurtful?
2. Are indigenous people rightfully offended by the modern use of "Redskins"?
3. Is retaining NFL traditions and appeasing mouth-foaming counter-activists more important than any pain experienced by those offended?
For me, the answers to these three questions are clearly yes. Enjoy the football game. Hope you feel the illusion of liberty that you desire.
(And, for what it's worth, as an Irish person, I don't see why any Irish person would be offended by being referred to as a Fighting Irishman)
Can we please call a WWI British-German Christmas truce on this one?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
Except that we also know that certain folks get to write history, define meanings of words, etc. When the director of the Smithsonian Institute's Linguistics division has a definition about Redskins that doesn't make it into that definition, why is that the case? He's an expert in his field. So who is determining the definitions? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who is outraged, especially when those that are supposed to be outraged (in poll after poll) prove that they are not....gasp....outraged or offended. Have you ever thought that the guilt factor here in this country that plays into so much of this BS has become so consumed with it's own power to decide who should be offended that they missed the most basic element, which is finding out if it is THEY that are offended or the actual peoples that they THINK should be offended.
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
I know how much you yearn for those "good old days" of the late 1700s but common sense would dictate using today's definitions to settle today's disagreements. You want to fight with the dictionaries (which you're quick to deem as speaking ex cathedra when you think they even slightly aid your argument - oh the irony, sigh, sigh) take it up with them. Just proves what I said earlier. Those at the extremes aren't interested in a common sense solution.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 23, 2013, 08:02:00 AM
Redskin is also the name of a potato--so we would should all feel outrage at that blatant vegetable racism.
This is the best you come up with? I'm counting this as a victory
Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 21, 2013, 12:28:28 PM
Right, we are actually saying the same thing but viewing it differently. Requiring 10% of a group, as opposed to a single American citizen, in order to voice an opinion to the government is (arguably) unconstitutional. The argument is that requiring 10%, or any other threshold, for an individual to protest the government creates a chilling factor.
We'll see. Things like this usually end up in the court system and con law scholars much smarter than us sort it out.
You're confusing the issue... nobody is saying you'd have to meet a 10% threshold to voice your opinion or protest the government. You can hold a one-person protest, and that doesn't preclude anybody from taking action... but in order to
force an action be taken on your protest, you need to get to 10%. There's nothing unreasonable or unconstitutional about that.
Look at it this way: The US Constitution gives me the right as a 35+ year old, American-born citizen to be elected President of the United States. It's my constitutional right to run for office should I so choose. But I can't simply force the government to put my name on the ballot just because I want to run... there's a nomination process, and I have to meet a certain threshold of signatures. And in the end, it's not up to just one person to decide whether or not I become President... I need to be elected by a group of people who represent the entire population.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vZ2NJ98Fe7Q/TmE3VYLG0DI/AAAAAAAAAKA/rPxEtT1B-z8/s1600/unfair.jpg)
(http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/ItsSoUnfair-29416.jpeg)
Quote from: willie warrior on December 23, 2013, 08:02:00 AM
Redskin is also the name of a potato--so we would should all feel outrage at that blatant vegetable racism.
Actually, after thinking about this more, it did remind me of Carthage College. Carthage used to be known as the Redmen and their mascot used a rather stereotypical imagery. After the NCAA came down on Native American mascots, the switched to the Red Men. Their mascot is now a anthropomorphized fireball. If it worked for them, it should have worked for Warriors