MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Skatastrophy on October 10, 2013, 09:46:45 AM
-
... to the D.C. Redskins (http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/)
-
Ah yes... the old "the Diesel engine was named for its inventor, Rudolph Engine" punchline. Never gets old.
-
Ahh, the Onion. If there's one thing I really REALLY miss about Milwaukee, it's Toya Washington. But in second, it's easily The Onion.
-
Purely manufactured controversy. I'm tired of the chronically outraged.
-
Purely manufactured controversy. I'm tired of the chronically outraged.
I'm tired of the intolerance. The NCAI rightly thinks that the Redskins mascot, and the Cleveland Indians mascot are both offensive. I can't believe we are even having this conversation in 2013.
-
The version I heard is they changed it to the Maryland Redskins.
-
Ahh, the Onion. If there's one thing I really REALLY miss about Milwaukee, it's Toya Washington. But in second, it's easily The Onion.
mmmm....Toya Washington.
-
Ahh, the Onion. If there's one thing I really REALLY miss about Milwaukee, it's Toya Washington. But in second, it's easily The Onion.
I got to work with Toya a few times back when I was doing overnights at Channel 12, in those days when I was actually using my degree. What is amazing about Toya is that she's one of the very few women in the business I met that actually looks better in person than she does on camera.
-
Hey! Anyone on here quote the recent Rick Reilly piece in their support of the Skins name? Hmmm... Who would have quoted and referenced his original column...
http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450
-
I'm tired of the intolerance. The NCAI rightly thinks that the Redskins mascot, and the Cleveland Indians mascot are both offensive. I can't believe we are even having this conversation in 2013.
The NCAI speaks for all Native Americans ::)
The NCAI opposed Seminoles as a nickname which I'm sure you know. Guess what, the Seminole nation of Oklahoma and Florida were ok with it, endorsed it, etc. Are Seminoles not Native Americans? Are Seminoles not part of the NCAI. Hmmm. So the NCAI opposes it, but the actual tribal nation supports it.....hmmm. How can this be?
Just like the AMA backed Obamacare, but polls of actual individual doctors do not...overwhelmingly. The AMA only has 1/4 of doctors as members. Doctors oppose the law at 60% to 70% depending on the poll, yet the AMA endorses it and you guys love to extrapolate that based on the organization view not the actual person view. Hmmm, see the problem here? It's done all the time and lemmings buy it, but not the smart ones that dig a little deeper. Organization or membership does not speak for everyone.
The NCAI is an organization, as well....how many Native Americans are in that organization?
With your logic, you would say the AFL-CIO, NRA or Boy Scouts of America backs a certain position, but when their members actually vote and it comes out differently you don't understand why....after all, the organization was for it. ::) The organization doesn't speak for all. Often, it isn't even close.
Good job Dan Snyder....the outraged are so spun up on this thing their heads are exploding. I need to go talk to my wife, I hear N.O.W. speaks for all women.
-
"Although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently."
-
I'm tired of the intolerance. The NCAI rightly thinks that the Redskins mascot, and the Cleveland Indians mascot are both offensive. I can't believe we are even having this conversation in 2013.
you must be up in Wasau right now protesting school officials who ruled the high school chorus can only sing 1 Christmas carol per5 secular songs or wait until January to perform
-
you must be up in Wasau right now protesting school officials who ruled the high school chorus can only sing 1 Christmas carol per5 secular songs or wait until January to perform
Wasau is an Indian name.....we should change it.
-
The NCAI speaks for all Native Americans ::)
The NCAI opposed Seminoles as a nickname which I'm sure you know. Guess what, the Seminole nation of Oklahoma and Florida were ok with it, endorsed it, etc. Are Seminoles not Native Americans? Are Seminoles not part of the NCAI. Hmmm. So the NCAI opposes it, but the actual tribal nation supports it.....hmmm. How can this be?
Just like the AMA backed Obamacare, but polls of actual individual doctors do not...overwhelmingly. The AMA only has 1/4 of doctors as members. Doctors oppose the law at 60% to 70% depending on the poll, yet the AMA endorses it and you guys love to extrapolate that based on the organization view not the actual person view. Hmmm, see the problem here? It's done all the time and lemmings buy it, but not the smart ones that dig a little deeper. Organization or membership does not speak for everyone.
The NCAI is an organization, as well....how many Native Americans are in that organization?
With your logic, you would say the AFL-CIO, NRA or Boy Scouts of America backs a certain position, but when their members actually vote and it comes out differently you don't understand why....after all, the organization was for it. ::) The organization doesn't speak for all. Often, it isn't even close.
Good job Dan Snyder....the outraged are so spun up on this thing their heads are exploding. I need to go talk to my wife, I hear N.O.W. speaks for all women.
You're a real unnatural carnal knowledgeing twit. You know that right? They don't have to speak for all Native Americans. They are offended by the name Redskins, just like most Native Americans. Is your argument that 100% of a race of people have to be offended by a name for it to be offensive enough to be changed?
If you actually go on their website they fully explain that they are fine with the Seminoles, Utes, and Chippawas. Coincidentally, those schools don't use offensive mascots, and their names were supported by the local tribes.
Your analogies are pretty hilarious. We aren't talking about a political point of view, or even financial. This is about racism. That you don't comprehend the difference is embarrassing.
By your logic, then, you have no problem with these mascots.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/10/mascot_hats.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
-
You're a real unnatural carnal knowledgeing twit. You know that right? They don't have to speak for all Native Americans. They are offended by the name Redskins, just like most Native Americans. Is your argument that 100% of a race of people have to be offended by a name for it to be offensive enough to be changed?
If you actually go on their website they fully explain that they are fine with the Seminoles, Utes, and Chippawas. Coincidentally, those schools don't use offensive mascots, and their names were supported by the local tribes.
Your analogies are pretty hilarious. We aren't talking about a political point of view, or even financial. This is about racism. That you don't comprehend the difference is embarrassing.
By your logic, then, you have no problem with these mascots.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/10/mascot_hats.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
Didn't you read his post? Chico and his Chink bros from his hood love those hats. Their gonna build a business around them. I don't give their idea a Chinaman's chance.
-
you must be up in Wasau right now protesting school officials who ruled the high school chorus can only sing 1 Christmas carol per5 secular songs or wait until January to perform
Why is that?
I'm not offended by the mascots because they aren't racist towards my whiteness. On the other hand, I can certainly sympathize with the Native Americans that these mascots offend. But I guess that makes me a screaming liberal, or it means I have to be offended by everything.
-
Hey! Anyone on here quote the recent Rick Reilly piece in their support of the Skins name? Hmmm... Who would have quoted and referenced his original column...
http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450
Wonder why Deadspin didn't give Rick's viewpoint. Rick said he quoted him accurately....strange that Deadspin would show both sides of the story....strange, weird.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rpkd7s
-
Wonder why Deadspin didn't give Rick's viewpoint. Rick said he quoted him accurately....strange that Deadspin would show both sides of the story....strange, weird.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rpkd7s
Strange....weird. Chico's can't read.
http://deadspin.com/rick-reilly-feels-like-he-quoted-his-father-in-law-corr-1443683582
Very odd.
-
Hards, you are a screaming liberal, you have already admitted that. :P
I find that people comfortable in their own skin and their own heritage don't get outraged by this stuff. There will always be people outraged, some much more than others. I find it hilarious that you used a membership organization to be the torch bearer when the actual members say differently in scientific poll after scientific poll. Guess what, this same organization has been against various names (Braves, Indians, etc) for several decades, yet despite that the Native American people have not. I guess this organization has a lot of sway. :P Sorry, just because YOU find the name problematic and this organization does, doesn't make it so. Not sure why this is so hard for you to get into your head. I'm sure it drives you batty, I'm sure it drives this organization batty. "How can these people not be outraged and find this name a source of pride. I know, I will double my outrage to cover for their lack of it".
Am I outraged over the hats? No. Just as I'm not outraged over someone wearing a White Trash hat. Shouldn't I be? Isn't the implication that whites are trash?
As for Lenny....again, he's cute and inconsistent as usual. He's fine with Braves, he's fine with Indians even, but Redskins is out. But but but but, this organization that speaks for all Native Americans (don't you get it), is against Braves, against Indians, too. Are they just right on the one name, but terribly ignorant and stupid and overreaching on the others? How do you know Lenny, you're not a Native American...how do you not know that name Brave doesn't sting these people to the core?
-
If you actually go on their website they fully explain that they are fine with the Seminoles, Utes, and Chippawas. Coincidentally, those schools don't use offensive mascots
It's Chippewas.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Chief_Osceola_on_Renegade_FSU.jpg)
(http://www.screwtheu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Utah_Utes_Indian.jpg)
-
As for Lenny....again, he's cute and inconsistent as usual. He's fine with Braves, he's fine with Indians even, but Redskins is out. But but but but, this organization that speaks for all Native Americans (don't you get it), is against Braves, against Indians, too. Are they just right on the one name, but terribly ignorant and stupid and overreaching on the others? How do you know Lenny, you're not a Native American...how do you not know that name Brave doesn't sting these people to the core?
How is it inconsistent to consider characterizations that are at worst neutral (Brave, Indian) inoffensive and ones that are by definition demeaning (redskin) to be offensive? I don't care what a poll says. I disagree with them frequently. Same goes for "organizations". I don't need their help to make a common sense determination either. Crazies on both sides (everything or nothing is offensive) demand an orthodoxy that defies logic. Plenty of solid middle ground between you intentionally Neanderthal and the constantly whining.
-
Hards, you are a screaming liberal, you have already admitted that. :P
I find that people comfortable in their own skin and their own heritage don't get outraged by this stuff. There will always be people outraged, some much more than others. I find it hilarious that you used a membership organization to be the torch bearer when the actual members say differently in scientific poll after scientific poll. Guess what, this same organization has been against various names (Braves, Indians, etc) for several decades, yet despite that the Native American people have not. I guess this organization has a lot of sway. :P Sorry, just because YOU find the name problematic and this organization does, doesn't make it so. Not sure why this is so hard for you to get into your head. I'm sure it drives you batty, I'm sure it drives this organization batty. "How can these people not be outraged and find this name a source of pride. I know, I will double my outrage to cover for their lack of it".
Am I outraged over the hats? No. Just as I'm not outraged over someone wearing a White Trash hat. Shouldn't I be? Isn't the implication that whites are trash?
As for Lenny....again, he's cute and inconsistent as usual. He's fine with Braves, he's fine with Indians even, but Redskins is out. But but but but, this organization that speaks for all Native Americans (don't you get it), is against Braves, against Indians, too. Are they just right on the one name, but terribly ignorant and stupid and overreaching on the others? How do you know Lenny, you're not a Native American...how do you not know that name Brave doesn't sting these people to the core?
Chicos, you truly are the master of the strawman argument. Taking comments out of context is your specialty (though I guess I shouldn't be surprised). You know who else is great at taking comments out of context? My wife. I've never said that I was a screaming liberal. Do most of my views lean left? Sure. Do they all? No. Just like yours don't all lean to the conservative extreme. Why do you lean on this crutch time after time?
I could not have been more clear when I said that I am not personally offended by the name the Redskins because it isn't directed at me. Why can't you understand that? I said that I can sympathize with the Native Americans that think it is racist. Your point that the name should be allowed simply because of some poll (which you have, curiously, yet to point to) of Native Americans that think it isn't. Simply because your phantom poll states that some don't care about the name Redskins, you think that it should be allowed? Isn't it possible that quite a few black people aren't offended by the N-word? Does that mean we should go around using that word as a mascot for a sports team because it doesn't offend everyone? I really have a hard time following your logic here. Probably because there isn't any.
If the Washington Redskins want to change their name to a tribe that exists around the DC area, that's fine. I have no problem with them doing what most institutions have done around the country that previously used Native American imagery.
-
Strange....weird. Chico's can't read.
http://deadspin.com/rick-reilly-feels-like-he-quoted-his-father-in-law-corr-1443683582
Very odd.
Not in the Deadspin story yesterday. I can read just fine. Good for Deadspin to address it. It was funny watching some here decide that what Deadspin said yesterday was the end all be all without taking Reilly's perspective into account. You know, the same guys that jump someone's junk for judging Malek Harris suspension too quickly and wanting to wait for the other side. You can't make this stuff up sometimes, it is funny to watch.
-
Not in the Deadspin story yesterday.
It was a separate story that was posted yesterday at 7:47 PM.
-
How is it inconsistent to consider characterizations that are at worst neutral (Brave, Indian) inoffensive and ones that are by definition demeaning (redskin) to be offensive? I don't care what a poll says. I disagree with them frequently. Same goes for "organizations". I don't need their help to make a common sense determination either. Crazies on both sides (everything or nothing is offensive) demand an orthodoxy that defies logic. Plenty of solid middle ground between you intentionally Neanderthal and the constantly whining.
Because on one side you and others are arguing this is for the Native American population to decide, and you are deciding what is derogatory. Then you come out and say, "well, actually Indians and Braves isn't that bad"....but some Native Americans say it is. One such distinguished membership that Hards has brought into the conversation...if they say it is, then do we only taken them for their beliefs on Redskins and not the whole shooting match? Now you are saying you don't need their help to make a common sense determination....so you're saying they are stupid, dumb, or incapable of common sense? You're ignoring their core beliefs that these names are wrong?
See the tangled web we weave? You accuse me of trying to have it both ways, I can't think of a more pertinent poster child of an issue then you on this one. The majority of Native American people have said Redskins doesn't matter. You, disagree and SOME Native Americans agree with you. The majority of Native American people have said Braves, Indians, etc doesn't bother them either. You agree, despite SOME Native Americans saying it is not right. LOL
-
Because on one side you and others are arguing this is for the Native American population to decide, and you are deciding what is derogatory. Then you come out and say, "well, actually Indians and Braves isn't that bad"....but some Native Americans say it is. One such distinguished membership that Hards has brought into the conversation...if they say it is, then do we only taken them for their beliefs on Redskins and not the whole shooting match? Now you are saying you don't need their help to make a common sense determination....so you're saying they are stupid, dumb, or incapable of common sense? You're ignoring their core beliefs that these names are wrong?
See the tangled web we weave? You accuse me of trying to have it both ways, I can't think of a more pertinent poster child of an issue then you on this one. The majority of Native American people have said Redskins doesn't matter. You, disagree and SOME Native Americans agree with you. The majority of Native American people have said Braves, Indians, etc doesn't bother them either. You agree, despite SOME Native Americans saying it is not right. LOL
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't give a rat's ass about any polls, their agreement or disagreement with my position is nothing more than coincidental. My position is simple. ALMOST anything goes. If people want to be offended by things that are not patently offensive they can pound sand. That said, I have a brain. A term that by definition is negative and used as a racial slur is a bad idea for a nickname. And I have two good eyes. Caricatures like Willie Wampum and Chief Wahoo don't need to be preserved. Common sense.
-
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't give a rat's ass about any polls, their agreement or disagreement with my position is nothing more than coincidental. My position is simple. ALMOST anything goes. If people want to be offended by things that are not patently offensive they can pound sand. That said, I have a brain. A term that by definition is negative and used as a racial slur is a bad idea for a nickname. And I have two good eyes. Caricatures like Willie Wampum and Chief Wahoo don't need to be preserved. Common sense.
Lenny, common sense is a slippery slope.
-
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I don't give a rat's ass about any polls, their agreement or disagreement with my position is nothing more than coincidental. My position is simple. ALMOST anything goes. If people want to be offended by things that are not patently offensive they can pound sand. That said, I have a brain. A term that by definition is negative and used as a racial slur is a bad idea for a nickname. And I have two good eyes. Caricatures like Willie Wampum and Chief Wahoo don't need to be preserved. Common sense.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the majority of people you think are being slurred, don't feel they are being slurred and want to keep the name.
Not hard, really...not hard. You don't think Braves is a big deal...your opinion. You think Redskins is a big deal.....the people that are supposed to think it is a big deal do not. So your outrage and your beliefs trump theirs? I don't think so.
Not hard at all. Of course you don't care about the polls (unless they are preseason top 25 worthless polls ;D ), because they tell a story you don't like. Not hard at all.
-
I'm tired of the intolerance. The NCAI rightly thinks that the Redskins mascot, and the Cleveland Indians mascot are both offensive. I can't believe we are even having this conversation in 2013.
Why is it that people who are always espousing tolerance are the least tolerant people in society? How many drum circles do you see near 16th and Center protesting violence? How often do you see a Prius parked outside a supermercado? Why did the Smoke-Free Wisconsin gestapo have no problem exempting tribal casinos?
BTW - The Redskins name and Chief Wahoo indeed should be shown the door, but not because of anything having to do with tolerance. Try making an argument while being sensitive to the beliefs of those with different perspectives, and you might actually sway some opinions. Being confrontational and condescending just makes you seem so damn intolerant.
-
Lenny, common sense is a slippery slope.
Dear Native Americans, we are smarter than you. You have no common sense, sorry but that is just the way it is. You are too stupid to know this is a racial slur, but it is ok because Lenny and I are here to take up the task for you and champion change you do not want because you lack common sense. So you go on being stupid and without common sense and even though we aren't native Americans ourselves, we know what is best for you and will tell you how you should think. We will decide for you. Your opinions do not matter. Quite frankly, we don't even care what you think.
Sincerely, the Righteous Brothers
-
Why is it that people who are always espousing tolerance are the least tolerant people in society? How many drum circles do you see near 16th and Center protesting violence? How often do you see a Prius parked outside a supermercado? Why did the Smoke-Free Wisconsin gestapo have no problem exempting tribal casinos?
BAZING.
Exactly. Because they are tolerant of THEIR positions, but wholly intolerable on anyone else's. The most intolerant people around are those that preach it daily.
-
Why is it that people who are always espousing tolerance are the least tolerant people in society? How many drum circles do you see near 16th and Center protesting violence? How often do you see a Prius parked outside a supermercado? Why did the Smoke-Free Wisconsin gestapo have no problem exempting tribal casinos?
BTW - The Redskins name and Chief Wahoo indeed should be shown the door, but not because of anything having to do with tolerance. Try making an argument while being sensitive to the beliefs of those with different perspectives, and you might actually sway some opinions. Being confrontational and condescending just makes you seem so damn intolerant.
I'm just condescending to those who deserve it. Nothing new here. Chicos is just too thick to understand that I am not the person leading the crusade to change the name. I only acknowledge that the name "Redskins" clearly offends Native Americans, and therefore should be changed. He has not demonstrated a simple understanding of the facts in that respect. I have no plans to protest or do anything about it. I simply cannot understand how someone who claims to be intelligent thinks that it is acceptable to use a racist name as a mascot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskins?s=t
At this point, I'm just walking away from this.
-
characterizations that are at worst neutral (Indian)
Not everyone agrees, Lenny. A lot of Indians are upset with the gross mischaracterizations surrounding the Indians in Cleveland. Some things are just hurtful. Hurtful I tell you
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DnmjEFNC0Cw/SNlQes-eQoI/AAAAAAAAGcU/OXrIClTLbXs/s400/riot.jpg)
(http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday/images/stories//2010july/100806052159_CS-Kashmir-13.jpg)
(http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2717/images/20100827271712902.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nn4b2gkHsEU/TI47MOX0bbI/AAAAAAAAGDA/OPzaIsdpvKM/s640/tuhin4.jpg)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45820000/jpg/_45820957_007384402-1.jpg)
-
BAZING.
Exactly. Because they are tolerant of THEIR positions, but wholly intolerable on anyone else's. The most intolerant people around are those that preach it daily.
you were looking in the mirror as you typed this, no?
-
I'm just condescending to those who deserve it. Nothing new here. Chicos is just too thick to understand that I am not the person leading the crusade to change the name. I only acknowledge that the name "Redskins" clearly offends Native Americans, and therefore should be changed. He has not demonstrated a simple understanding of the facts in that respect. I have no plans to protest or do anything about it. I simply cannot understand how someone who claims to be intelligent thinks that it is acceptable to use a racist name as a mascot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskins?s=t
At this point, I'm just walking away from this.
Hilarious....your own statement here catches you. Clearly offends SOME Native Americans. For a reason known ONLY to you, the word SOME is omitted from your thought process. In fact the SOME, is actually the MINORITY of Native Americans, another tidbit you ignore.
I cannot understand how someone that claims to be intelligent thinks that a group of people is ok with the name, believes it brings honor to their people but ignores those opinions entirely....basically claims they are stupid (in turn saying these Native Americans that believe this are stupid) and will decide for them.
DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR LACK OF TOLERANCE IS SO HYPOCRITICAL? You tolerate YOUR views and those of others LIKE you. You do not tolerate the views of the majority of Native Americans who are fine with the name. In fact, you ridicule them for lacking common sense and without intelligence. I can't make it any clearer for you. Tolerance among the left works like this all the time. TOLERANT FOR ME, BUT NOT TOLERANT FOR THEE. MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. The absolute definition of hypocrisy.
For the record, I never said you are leading the charge on this, so the thickness comment is out of line. Your lack of tolerance for the views of Native Americans that you don't agree with, however, is thick.
-
you were looking in the mirror as you typed this, no?
I'm not the one screaming tolerance. I'm the one defending the rights of the majority of those people who believe the name is fine and I'm not indicating they lack in intelligence or common sense because I don't agree with them. This is essentially exactly what you, Lenny, Hards are doing. You don't like that the majority of Native Americans are ok with the name because it doesn't fit your view, so you then stoop down to say anyone that doesn't hold YOUR views is lacking common sense, lacking intelligence and is intolerant. IRONY....my way or the highway. My views or you are intolerant. WOW. HYPOCRISY 101. Of course, you guys are so caught up in your world view on this, you don't even recognize it. Hopefully you can keep educating the dumb Native Americans and put common sense into them until they eventually come around to your position..the right position, the one that is correct, the one that is supreme, the one that is moral, ethical and righteous.
(http://www.ldjackson.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tolerant-liberals-e1343386644477.jpg)
-
Listen, I don't really care if you want to turn these discussions into political rants, do it all you like. BUT DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. No politics here. Period.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskins?s=t
At this point, I'm just walking away from this.
I just hope the name Oklahoma is changed soon. Afterall, it means "Red People" in Choctaw language.
-
I just hope the name Oklahoma is changed soon. Afterall, it means "Red People" in Choctaw language.
I thought it meant "Land where the wind comes sweeping down the plain"
-
I thought it meant "Land where the wind comes sweeping down the plain"
Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red"). Red people.
The name "Okla (red) Homma (people)" was first suggested in 1866 by a Choctaw, Rev. Allen Wright,
In the Choctaw language, okla means "people;" homma or humma means "red." The English word Indian is "Okla Homma" in Choctaw. In their treaties with the United States, the Choctaws were spoken of as either "The Choctaw Nation of Indians" or "The Choctaw Nation of Red People," the last phrase in each instance being rendered "Okla Homma" in the native language.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v014/v014p156.html
-
Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red"). Red people.
The name "Okla (red) Homma (people)" was first suggested in 1866 by a Choctaw, Rev. Allen Wright,
In the Choctaw language, okla means "people;" homma or humma means "red." The English word Indian is "Okla Homma" in Choctaw. In their treaties with the United States, the Choctaws were spoken of as either "The Choctaw Nation of Indians" or "The Choctaw Nation of Red People," the last phrase in each instance being rendered "Okla Homma" in the native language.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v014/v014p156.html
Chico,
I was kidding...
Rodgers and Hammerstein must be dismayed at the insufficiency of your cultural literacy
-
Chico,
I was kidding...
Rodgers and Hammerstein must be dismayed at the insufficiency of your cultural literacy
I know...the musical Oklahoma....we did it in the 8th grade. Before someone truly questioned that the name is Red People, figured I better source it and you provided a nice opportunity.
-
I know...the musical Oklahoma....we did it in the 8th grade. Before someone truly questioned that the name is Red People, figured I better source it and you provided a nice opportunity.
Laurel meet Hardy?
-
Strange....weird. Chico's can't read.
http://deadspin.com/rick-reilly-feels-like-he-quoted-his-father-in-law-corr-1443683582
Very odd.
Reilly....inducted into the National Sportscasters & Sportswriters Hall of Fame. Today was his last column.
-
Reilly was great. I remember reading his SI stuff 20-30 years ago and thought it was fabulous. Then he lost his edge. Starting mailing it in. Literally repeating columns from years ago. His ESPN era was absolutely brutal.
-
This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen on scoop.
Maybe that can be the next tournament after the meme one is done.
-
Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red"). Red people.
The name "Okla (red) Homma (people)" was first suggested in 1866 by a Choctaw, Rev. Allen Wright,
In the Choctaw language, okla means "people;" homma or humma means "red." The English word Indian is "Okla Homma" in Choctaw. In their treaties with the United States, the Choctaws were spoken of as either "The Choctaw Nation of Indians" or "The Choctaw Nation of Red People," the last phrase in each instance being rendered "Okla Homma" in the native language.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v014/v014p156.html
The classic Choctaw name. Kinda like Sean O'Reilly in Ireland.
-
The classic Choctaw name. Kinda like Sean O'Reilly in Ireland.
Rev Allen Wright
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Allen_wright.jpg)
-
Maybe we should use something historical to replace offensive indian names, I suggest LOSERS
-
Maybe we should use something historical to replace offensive indian names, I suggest LOSERS
I can't tell if this is a crack at the Washington Redskins football team or Native Americans.
Neither other option is very funny....one is bigoted....but neither is very funny
-
Reilly was great. I remember reading his SI stuff 20-30 years ago and thought it was fabulous. Then he lost his edge. Starting mailing it in. Literally repeating columns from years ago. His ESPN era was absolutely brutal.
I loved his columns inside the back page of SI. He also wrote a couple fictional books centered around golf I really enjoyed.
Here is his column on Coach McGuire shortly before his passing
http://www.si.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1020392/index.htm
-
Just take the stigma away.
Change the name to the Maryland Redskins and the disgusting taste will be washed out of everyone's mouth.
-
Just take the stigma away.
Change the name to the Maryland Redskins and the disgusting taste will be washed out of everyone's mouth.
Since Snyder is Jewish, why not the Washington Kikes? They could change the team symbol to a pile of money.
Some people here don't mind derogatory names, so instead of Snyder calling his team the Redskins, why doesn't he make the right move and use a name that hits closer to home?
-
Why can't we all just be friends?
-
In before the lock.
-
Since Snyder is Jewish, why not the Washington Kikes? They could change the team symbol to a pile of money.
Some people here don't mind derogatory names, so instead of Snyder calling his team the Redskins, why doesn't he make the right move and use a name that hits closer to home?
If the vast majority of Jewish folks are ok with it, like Native Americans are with Redskins, go for it. Otherwise, your analogy falls flat...again.
-
If the vast majority of Jewish folks are ok with it, like Native Americans are with Redskins, go for it. Otherwise, your analogy falls flat...again.
Yes the Sport's Illustrated poll. Because they are the authority on Native Americans ::)
Even if those numbers are true, which I would bet a lot of money that it is not, it does not matter. 8% of Native Americans is still thousands of people. I will fight for those thousands. Zero harm is done by the Redskins changing their mascot. Thousands are helped by it. It's a utilitarian no brainer.
This will happen eventually. If I were Snyder, I'd rather be remembered as the owner who had the courage to fight for what was right rather than the last owner who clung to a racist mascot.
-
This will happen eventually. If I were Snyder, I'd rather be remembered as the owner who had the courage to fight for what was right rather than the last owner who clung to a racist mascot.
You're absolutely right. My great grandchildren (maybe even my grandchildren) will scratch their heads in amazement that a team was once called the "Redskins" and that there once was a mascot like Chief Wahoo. We'll patiently explain that that every generation has ignorant folks who cling to the status quo like it's the Holy Grail. And we'll point out the fact those people who defended racial slurs for nicknames would have, in earlier generations, defended even more evil practices. Thanks to them, progress comes slowly - but it does come.
-
You're absolutely right. My great grandchildren (maybe even my grandchildren) will scratch their heads in amazement that a team was once called the "Redskins" and that there once was a mascot like Chief Wahoo. We'll patiently explain that that every generation has ignorant folks who cling to the status quo like it's the Holy Grail. And we'll point out the fact those people who defended racial slurs for nicknames would have, in earlier generations, defended more more evil practices. Thanks to them, progress comes slowly - but it does come.
Well put.
-
Yes the Sport's Illustrated poll. Because they are the authority on Native Americans ::)
Even if those numbers are true, which I would bet a lot of money that it is not, it does not matter. 8% of Native Americans is still thousands of people. I will fight for those thousands. Zero harm is done by the Redskins changing their mascot. Thousands are helped by it. It's a utilitarian no brainer.
This will happen eventually. If I were Snyder, I'd rather be remembered as the owner who had the courage to fight for what was right rather than the last owner who clung to a racist mascot.
Actually the Anneburg Poll from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school.
So in your world, you will always fight for the 8% or the "thousands". Well, there are clearly thousands that are against Fighting Irish...so let's fight it' There are clearly thousands against the Browns, so let's fight against it.
You are deciding what is racist for a group that has said it is not. In fact, so much so, that at Native American high schools there are several that have, wait for it, Redskins as their school mascot.
So I always enjoy it when others have the moral high ground to tell others how stupid they are, but they will carry the mantle and defend their stupidity for having such mascot because they don't realize that it is racist. ;D
-
You're absolutely right. My great grandchildren (maybe even my grandchildren) will scratch their heads in amazement that a team was once called the "Redskins" and that there once was a mascot like Chief Wahoo. We'll patiently explain that that every generation has ignorant folks who cling to the status quo like it's the Holy Grail. And we'll point out the fact those people who defended racial slurs for nicknames would have, in earlier generations, defended more more evil practices. Thanks to them, progress comes slowly - but it does come.
It's why I was so glad to see the Kings beat the Blackhawks because having a Native American's face on a uniform is so disrespectful. I look forward to telling my grandchildren how I led the charge against Chicago racism for putting a Native American on a uniform.
Of course, I had to cheer for the Kings, which is a put down of women and supports a patriarchal society so I am now no longer going to support any team anywhere that has a human being of any kind as a mascot.....but then, is it fair then to cheer for a bird mascot over a mammal...would would the mammals think? Who is out there to defend the 8% or thousands of mammals?
-
If you guys could, please send a note to Red Mesa High School in Arizona. Navajo school on a reservation. They don't know they are racist because they have Redskins as their nickname and mascot, even though they are Native American.
I was hoping some of you that are morally superior could teach them, and their grandkids the error of their ways.
http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com/
When you are done, here are a few more with the same message.
Kingston High School in Oklahoma. Majority Native American...and racist apparently..or just stupid....damn those Choctaw and Chicasaw tribes for being so ignorant. Oh, they've worn the Redskins name on their uniform for 105 years. http://www.kingston.k12.ok.us/
McCloud High School in Oklahoma. So on and so forth.
-
Actually the Anneburg Poll from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school.
And what about the study by the American Psychology Association that determined that having Native American mascots at non-Native American serving institutions was detrimental for the development and mental health of Native American students?
So in your world, you will always fight for the 8% or the "thousands". Well, there are clearly thousands that are against Fighting Irish...so let's fight it' There are clearly thousands against the Browns, so let's fight against it.
1. Where are these thousands? I have never heard of someone against the Fighting Irish mascot. The only time I have ever heard anything on it is in arguments like this where white people get defensive and try to use this as an excuse.
2. The Irish are now a majority group in terms of privilege. Native Americans are not. There is a difference.
3. Notre Dame when it started was an Irish Serving Institution. A significant portion of their population has always been Irish. It is different when a group wants to name their mascot after themselves. That's why the NCAA allowed Tribal College's such as UNC-Pembroke to keep their mascots when the mandate came down in 2005.
4. I am against the Browns nickname actually. I think it should be changed. I am more worried however about the mascot that is a racial slur for Native Americans.
5. What is the harm? Seriously? What bad thing will happen if the mascot is changed? You have thousands of Native Americans who are insulted by this. Recent polls show most Americans in general think it should be changed. What possible harm is there in changing the mascot to something less offensive? This is a move by stubborn people who don't want to admit that they have been endorsing racism for years.
You are deciding what is racist for a group that has said it is not. In fact, so much so, that at Native American high schools there are several that have, wait for it, Redskins as their school mascot.
See number 3 above.
The study never said it wasn't racist. The study "shows" that most are alright with it being used as a mascot. There is a difference. What people in power never seem to understand that those who don't have the power are not always willing to speak against those in power. I have a coworker who my other coworkers routinely jokingly call "tar baby" and make jokes about watermelon, fried chicken, and lynching trees. I'll let you guess what race my coworker is. I've called them out on it and they shrug it off and say "he's ok with it." My coworker will shrug and not say anything. When I have asked him about it in private he has said "it's really not worth fighting it. If I tell them to stop they will either feel too guilty to be around me or be angry at me for making them feel guilty."
Here is what I know, if I, a white person, call a Native American a redskin. I will most likely be punched or told to f**k off. I spent my summers growing up on the Lac Du Flambaeu Indian Reservation. Chicos, you are welcome to have another beer summit with me up at Cricket's Pub in Lac Du Flambaeu. I'll be happy to let you test this theory there.
-
If you guys could, please send a note to Red Mesa High School in Arizona. Navajo school on a reservation. They don't know they are racist because they have Redskins as their nickname and mascot, even though they are Native American.
I was hoping some of you that are morally superior could teach them, and their grandkids the error of their ways.
http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com/
When you are done, here are a few more with the same message.
Kingston High School in Oklahoma. Majority Native American...and racist apparently..or just stupid....damn those Choctaw and Chicasaw tribes for being so ignorant. Oh, they've worn the Redskins name on their uniform for 105 years. http://www.kingston.k12.ok.us/
McCloud High School in Oklahoma. So on and so forth.
Chicos, you are much too smart to actually believe this argument justifies the Washington Redskins.
-
Of course, I had to cheer for the Kings, which is a put down of women and supports a patriarchal society so I am now no longer going to support any team anywhere that has a human being of any kind as a mascot.....but then, is it fair then to cheer for a bird mascot over a mammal...would would the mammals think? Who is out there to defend the 8% or thousands of mammals?
Again Chichos, you are way too smart to actually believe this argument. Insulting a person's occupation and insulting a person's occupation are not nearly on the same level.
-
Chicos, you are much too smart to actually believe this argument justifies the Washington Redskins.
You are dodging the question. If it is racist, as you and others say it is, why are Native Americans not only in polling saying they are proud of the name but also in practice use the name for athletic teams as a name and mascot.
Or, is it possible, that white guilt America says it is racist and therefore that opinion matters more.
Or, maybe I'm just not that smart, so go ahead and explain it to me. Thanks
-
And what about the study by the American Psychology Association that determined that having Native American mascots at non-Native American serving institutions was detrimental for the development and mental health of Native American students?
1. Where are these thousands? I have never heard of someone against the Fighting Irish mascot. The only time I have ever heard anything on it is in arguments like this where white people get defensive and try to use this as an excuse.
2. The Irish are now a majority group in terms of privilege. Native Americans are not. There is a difference.
3. Notre Dame when it started was an Irish Serving Institution. A significant portion of their population has always been Irish. It is different when a group wants to name their mascot after themselves. That's why the NCAA allowed Tribal College's such as UNC-Pembroke to keep their mascots when the mandate came down in 2005.
4. I am against the Browns nickname actually. I think it should be changed. I am more worried however about the mascot that is a racial slur for Native Americans.
5. What is the harm? Seriously? What bad thing will happen if the mascot is changed? You have thousands of Native Americans who are insulted by this. Recent polls show most Americans in general think it should be changed. What possible harm is there in changing the mascot to something less offensive? This is a move by stubborn people who don't want to admit that they have been endorsing racism for years.
See number 3 above.
The study never said it wasn't racist. The study "shows" that most are alright with it being used as a mascot. There is a difference. What people in power never seem to understand that those who don't have the power are not always willing to speak against those in power. I have a coworker who my other coworkers routinely jokingly call "tar baby" and make jokes about watermelon, fried chicken, and lynching trees. I'll let you guess what race my coworker is. I've called them out on it and they shrug it off and say "he's ok with it." My coworker will shrug and not say anything. When I have asked him about it in private he has said "it's really not worth fighting it. If I tell them to stop they will either feel too guilty to be around me or be angry at me for making them feel guilty."
Here is what I know, if I, a white person, call a Native American a redskin. I will most likely be punched or told to f**k off. I spent my summers growing up on the Lac Du Flambaeu Indian Reservation. Chicos, you are welcome to have another beer summit with me up at Cricket's Pub in Lac Du Flambaeu. I'll be happy to let you test this theory there.
What is the harm in changing it? Why don't you ask Native Americans who outline it quite well. They are afraid as we continue to get further and further away from honoring Native Americans in whatever form people choose to do so, they will become more and more forgotten. Their words, not mind.
I've told the story earlier, my bro in law is Choctaw. Sorry, I'm not being told to F off or punched in the face if I am cheering for the Redskins in his presence. Nor is anyone else that cheers for the Redskins.
-
Again Chichos, you are way too smart to actually believe this argument. Insulting a person's occupation and insulting a person's occupation are not nearly on the same level.
You conveniently cut out the part about having a person's head on a sweater for the Chicago Blackhawks. Certainly, SOMEONE is offended by this. These people should be treated as mere mascots, why is that ok? Because the mascot doesn't look like Chief Wahoo? OK, so Chiefs should be ok (even though some people are up in arms and if they knew the origin of the Chiefs name it might make them bite their tongue).
Someone is always offended by something, and yes that includes people regarding the Fighting Irish as a slam against the Irish. Just because YOU haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
The idea of getting rid of the Brown is honest the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of, and I say that as a resident of Cleveland for 5 years and two parents from there. They were named after Paul Brown.
-
Actually the Anneburg Poll from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school.
So in your world, you will always fight for the 8% or the "thousands". Well, there are clearly thousands that are against Fighting Irish...so let's fight it' There are clearly thousands against the Browns, so let's fight against it.
You are deciding what is racist for a group that has said it is not. In fact, so much so, that at Native American high schools there are several that have, wait for it, Redskins as their school mascot.
So I always enjoy it when others have the moral high ground to tell others how stupid they are, but they will carry the mantle and defend their stupidity for having such mascot because they don't realize that it is racist. ;D
I don't like it when black people call themselves and each other #$%^&*s, but even if they're okay with that I'd still be against a professional sports team using a racial slur like "#$%^&*s" as a nickname. I'm told it's also common for gays to call each other handsome person, queer and other names that I would not be okay with in conversation or for a college's nickname. Words have meanings. Spare us the silly idea that because of a poll or because "that's what they call themselves" it isn't racist or bigoted for you to do likewise. That's just silly.
-
I don't like it when black people call themselves and each other #$%^&*s, but even if they're okay with that I'd still be against a professional sports team using a racial slur like "#$%^&*s" as a nickname. I'm told it's also common for gays to call each other handsome person, queer and other names that I would not be okay with in conversation or for a college's nickname. Words have meanings. Spare us the silly idea that because of a poll or because "that's what they call themselves" it isn't racist or bigoted for you to do likewise. That's just silly.
So you get to decide? LOL. Actually, you don't. Good for Dan Snyder, glad he is standing firm on this, even if your grandchildren are going to be upset. Your grandchildren might be horrified that a Blackhawk is on a pennant in your garage or that granddaddy openly cheered for the Blackhawks. I'd be more worried about your grandchildren wondering who Native Americans even are in 30 years or what they are allowed to say at all before being labeled by thought police, political correctness, etc.
As for your argument, that is completely contrary to the arguments here. On one hand, I hear the argument that it is ok for Native American schools to call themselves Redskins or ok that African Americans call themselves certain terms. You don't like it, but others say that's ok because that is "their" culture. Using that argument, then if Dan Snyder wants to call his team the Kikes (or whatever term was used earlier today) should be just fine, afterall it is part of his culture.
Fun watching the hypocrisy unwind so quickly. Incidentally, since I work with probably 100 gay people...easily that number if not double that number...if you were to tell my coworkers they could not use certain terms you don't like, they would call it censorship.
-
You are dodging the question. If it is racist, as you and others say it is, why are Native Americans not only in polling saying they are proud of the name but also in practice use the name for athletic teams as a name and mascot.
Or, is it possible, that white guilt America says it is racist and therefore that opinion matters more.
Or, maybe I'm just not that smart, so go ahead and explain it to me. Thanks
I didn't dodge the question. I answered it in a previous post. Native Americans can call each other Redskin as a symbol of pride. When it comes from a non-Native it is a slur.
I'm glad you brought up white guilt. Because it is the single most frustrating thing about race relations. Fear of white guilt is what halts positive progress. People like Dan Snyder are terrified to change the status quo. Becasue if they change the status quo, than they are admitting that their previous words and actions were not only wrong but racist. We are so afraid to be called racist that it paralyzes us, keeps us from having positive dialogue about the subject of race.
The truth is, we should feel guilty. Every last one of us has benefited from a system that grants advantages to whites that are not available to other races. We don't want to admit to it because we fear that it somehow cheapens all the work we have done. We fear being labeled a racist. We fear admitting that we have been wrong. When the truth is, we have all benefitted, we are all racist, and we have all been wrong. First step to fixing any kind of problem is admitting that there is a problem. Dan Snyder needs to grow a pair, be the bigger man, and admit he has been wrong and racist. Once he and others can admit this, we can finally work towards true equality.
-
What is the harm in changing it? Why don't you ask Native Americans who outline it quite well. They are afraid as we continue to get further and further away from honoring Native Americans in whatever form people choose to do so, they will become more and more forgotten. Their words, not mind.
I've told the story earlier, my bro in law is Choctaw. Sorry, I'm not being told to F off or punched in the face if I am cheering for the Redskins in his presence. Nor is anyone else that cheers for the Redskins.
This is the only argument that I have heard the opposition bring forward that I think is legitimate. I interned at the University of Utah for a summer. I got to witness some epic debates between various professionals over the Ute mascot. The truth is, without the university's support, the Ute tribe may have faded into history by this point. I think because of this, an argument could be made for the preservation of mascots that honor a specific tribe. Provided they have the tribe's full support, no offensive imagery is used, there is culture of respect, and the tribe is reimbursed for use of it's name. The Washington redskins however do not preserve or celebrate Native American history. They celebrate a history of Native American's oppression at the hands of whites. Cleveland Indians do the same thing.
As for the example you gave, you twisted the example. I was talking about calling an individual native american who you are not related to a redskin. Not cheering for a native american serving institution's team with a native american who is your brother in law. The invite to Cricket's still stands.
-
You conveniently cut out the part about having a person's head on a sweater for the Chicago Blackhawks. Certainly, SOMEONE is offended by this. These people should be treated as mere mascots, why is that ok? Because the mascot doesn't look like Chief Wahoo? OK, so Chiefs should be ok (even though some people are up in arms and if they knew the origin of the Chiefs name it might make them bite their tongue).
Someone is always offended by something, and yes that includes people regarding the Fighting Irish as a slam against the Irish. Just because YOU haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
The idea of getting rid of the Brown is honest the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of, and I say that as a resident of Cleveland for 5 years and two parents from there. They were named after Paul Brown.
You should know better CBB. I am against the Blackhawks too. I didn't mention it specifically because I figured you would have guessed that already. BTW, do you think I am Blackhawks fan? Far from it, I am all Red Wings baby.
The Chiefs' origin is fine, but their decision to utilize native american imagery made them vulnerable. If they used a fireman's hat and axe as a mascot or maybe some US military man, they would have been fine. But they decided to embrace the use of Native American imagery and it leads to gems like this
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0918/nfl_g_chiefs_fan_b1_600.jpg)
The Chiefs case is similar to Marquette's. Warriors does not inherently refer to Native Americans. It was our choice to use racist effigies like Willie Wampum to represent us. If we had gone in a different direction, we would have been fine. It was our own fault. I assume you think Willie Wampum was racist correct?
For the Irish, it is true, there may be people who are genuinely offended by the mascot. Just because I haven't met them, doesn't mean they aren't there. But that was only 1 of the 3 reasons I gave you for being fine with Fighting Irish. And it was the least of the three.
The Browns I may be wrong on. I looked at the history and I have found no major instances where they utilized Native American imagery. Unless, I missed something, than I think there is no issue there.
-
So you get to decide? LOL. Actually, you don't. Good for Dan Snyder, glad he is standing firm on this, even if your grandchildren are going to be upset.
So Dan Snyder has a right to name his team whatever he wants, but we don't have a right to be offended by it?
I'd be more worried about your grandchildren wondering who Native Americans even are in 30 years or what they are allowed to say at all before being labeled by thought police, political correctness, etc.
???? So fans being outraged by something=thought police? The government isn't coming in and forcing Dan Snyder to change the name. We are simply Americans who are expressing our distaste for the Redskins mascot. Eventually public pressure will make it more beneficial to Snyder or a new Redskins owner to change the name. Capitalism at it's finest.
As for the bit about not knowing who Native Americans are in 30 years, it is a bit of a stretch. But it is a valid concern. But as stated in previous posts, Team named after a tribe with tribe's full support and culture of respect=Preserving tradition, Native Americans naming a team Redskins=Preserving tradition, Rich white guy naming his team Redskins with fans who routinely show up in war paint and red face=Racist.
-
I don't like it when black people call themselves and each other #$%^&*s, but even if they're okay with that I'd still be against a professional sports team using a racial slur like "#$%^&*s" as a nickname. I'm told it's also common for gays to call each other handsome person, queer and other names that I would not be okay with in conversation or for a college's nickname. Words have meanings. Spare us the silly idea that because of a poll or because "that's what they call themselves" it isn't racist or bigoted for you to do likewise. That's just silly.
I agree with the side you are on, but I don't agree with this argument. Taking slurs and turning them into words of empowerment is one of the few weapons that minority populations have available to them. It's why the feminist movement embraced the word "b**ch." It's why the n-word is so commonly used in african american culture, it's why queer is now concerned a reclaimed word and refers to a specific type of sexual orientation. It's a way to lessen the blows of living in a racist society. So if an HBCU wanted to name themselves the N****rs, I would be fine with it. I don't think they ever well because I think the pressure from other parts of the black community would make it counter-productive.
-
You can be offended all you want, I just find it fascinating that the reason for offense is not shared by most of the supposed offendees. That leads me to believe that those that are offended either think the true offendees are too stupid to know they should be offended, or in fact they aren't offended and it is just another white guilt trip to get offended and faux raged over.
I suspect the latter in today's world.
I also find the hypocrisy insanely delicious on all levels. I have a few buds over at Turner (CNN) and they have indicated they did go down the path of another poll about Redskins. Guess why it hasn't been published? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. You can bet if the poll went the way they wanted, it would be out.
In the meantime, it is a private business. I suggest people that are outraged should boycott the NFL and be principled, otherwise it is merely hollow.
-
So I'm just curious, when UPS does their "what can Brown do for you", does that make you uncomfortable?
When New Zealand's national rugby team plays, the ALL Blacks, does that bother you when ESPN or other news outlet mentions their name?
-
You guys are going way off the reservation on this racism stuff. Teams don't pick knicknames to demean anybody, they are a source of pride and identification. Going after the Blackhawks as an example of it is loony. Chief Blackhawk is a figure writ large in Illinois history.
Anybody here accusing someone of racism is either psychic or throwing the term around like buffalo chips. Impossible to know what is in a person's heart from these discussions plus the term is so overused as to have little impact anymore.
-
You guys are going way off the reservation on this racism stuff. Teams don't pick knicknames to demean anybody, they are a source of pride and identification. Going after the Blackhawks as an example of it is loony. Chief Blackhawk is a figure writ large in Illinois history.
Anybody here accusing someone of racism is either psychic or throwing the term around like buffalo chips. Impossible to know what is in a person's heart from these discussions plus the term is so overused as to have little impact anymore.
100% agree. Why would any team pick a nickname that was racist or demeaning to their team? Of course they wouldn't. You pick a team name to honor your team, represent strength or other virtues.
Elephant, I know you are from L.A. Do you remember a few years ago when there were a few clowns that were trying to force the Angels to change their name with the argument that Angels is a name implying a being in heaven and associated with God, and because Angels stadium was partially built with taxpayer money they should be forced to change the name to something secular. There is always someone that is outraged over something. It's part of America the last 30 years, and a sad thing to see. But hey, I'm just a middle aged white guy so my opinion doesn't mean squat.
-
You can be offended all you want, I just find it fascinating that the reason for offense is not shared by most of the supposed offendees. That leads me to believe that those that are offended either think the true offendees are too stupid to know they should be offended, or in fact they aren't offended and it is just another white guilt trip to get offended and faux raged over.
I suspect the latter in today's world.
I also find the hypocrisy insanely delicious on all levels. I have a few buds over at Turner (CNN) and they have indicated they did go down the path of another poll about Redskins. Guess why it hasn't been published? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. You can bet if the poll went the way they wanted, it would be out.
In the meantime, it is a private business. I suggest people that are outraged should boycott the NFL and be principled, otherwise it is merely hollow.
Chicos, I have explained my views on that "credible" survey repeatedly. I have also offered you another study that talks about the risks of predominately white institutions utilizing native american imagery for mascots.
I have also told you my thoughts on white guilt. I hate it and I think it is improper motivator. The truth is, all of us have a helluva lot to feel guilty over, but that doesn't do anyone any good. One of my favorite speakers that I have ever seen told us "don't feel guilty, get mad! Get mad that this is the status quo and fight to change it." Every white American has benefited from a system that gives unfair advantages to some races and disadvantages to others. The only way to positive change in race relations is to first accept that we are privileged and then fight until we are equal. I am curious, what are your thoughts on white privilege? Do you think it exists?
It is a private business. I absolutely agree with that. I choose to vocalize my distaste. That is how I protest. I hope if enough likeminded individuals join in, then that private business will decide it is in their best interest to change the name. Capitalism at its finest.
-
So I'm just curious, when UPS does their "what can Brown do for you", does that make you uncomfortable?
When New Zealand's national rugby team plays, the ALL Blacks, does that bother you when ESPN or other news outlet mentions their name?
Chicos, I feel like I have been very respectful in this debate. I have acknowledged when I was wrong. I have acknowledged points where you were right. I openly disagreed with someone on this side of the debate when I didn't agree with their point. I ask that you please don't resort to reducto ad absurdium.
Besides, I already acknowledged my point about the Browns was wrong.
-
You guys are going way off the reservation on this racism stuff. Teams don't pick knicknames to demean anybody, they are a source of pride and identification. Going after the Blackhawks as an example of it is loony. Chief Blackhawk is a figure writ large in Illinois history.
Anybody here accusing someone of racism is either psychic or throwing the term around like buffalo chips. Impossible to know what is in a person's heart from these discussions plus the term is so overused as to have little impact anymore.
It's not just about intent, its also about result. Marquette didn't intend to be racist but this was the result:
(http://wiki.muscoop.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/nickname/williewampum.jpg)
The Cleveland Indians didn't intend to be racist but this was the result:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkZp9xUCAAAqzsB.jpg:large)
The Washington Redskins don't intend to be racist but this is the result:
(http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/default/files/uploads/07.redskins_fan.jpg)
Racism is rarely born of intention. It's born of ignorance.
-
100% agree. Why would any team pick a nickname that was racist or demeaning to their team?
Ignorance. That's why. They think they are doing a good thing but they do harm instead of good. Do you think Willie Wampum was racist? Marquette would certainly never intend to be racist. But I think it is now widely acknowledged (or more accurately shoved into a closet and never talked about) that he was an extremely racist mascot. What do you think?
-
So I'm just curious, when UPS does their "what can Brown do for you", does that make you uncomfortable?
When New Zealand's national rugby team plays, the ALL Blacks, does that bother you when ESPN or other news outlet mentions their name?
Would you stop it! I haven't had a work day lunch since Seattle passed an ordinance banning "Brown Bag" lunches.
-
Chicos, I feel like I have been very respectful in this debate. I have acknowledged when I was wrong. I have acknowledged points where you were right. I openly disagreed with someone on this side of the debate when I didn't agree with their point. I ask that you please don't resort to reducto ad absurdium.
Besides, I already acknowledged my point about the Browns was wrong.
TAMU, I was on my phone, and only ready one of your responses so my apologies. I'll read them today. It was hard for me to understand how someone can have a reflexive response to the Browns, so that is why I asked the question.
But now that I've read your most recent post about intent, say a bunch of fans of the Browns decided they were going to make their own mascot of or symbol of a player that was not Caucasian that you didn't agree with. It sounds like you are saying that means the name would have to be changed. I'm just curious how many does it take? 5% of people acting goofy, 10%, 30%?
I'm not trying to be cute, it's a legit question. You posted photos of guys in head dress. Sorry, I don't find that offensive. I'm sure some Native Americans do, I'm sure some Native Americans do not. You've been on record here suggesting that it doesn't matter if the majority of Native Americans are ok with it, but you will defend the smallest of numbers that are not. Well, that's noble and I tip my hat to you. I just wonder if that applies to everything in this situation, because the smallest number is 1. All is takes, is one person to be upset and outraged, and the power of 1 trumps all in that case.
-
Ignorance. That's why. They think they are doing a good thing but they do harm instead of good. Do you think Willie Wampum was racist? Marquette would certainly never intend to be racist. But I think it is now widely acknowledged (or more accurately shoved into a closet and never talked about) that he was an extremely racist mascot. What do you think?
I was talking about when the name was chosen. Do you think they chose a name to be racist or ignorant? Sorry, I don't. Sure, the manifestation of the mascot took some turns that people could find offensive. That's often what mascots do. I can find people that think the Leprechaun at ND is a stereotype, the Boston Celtic mascot, how African Americans are portrayed in tv series, how middle age white guys are portrayed, how women are, etc.
I'm watching the Angels Braves game last night and they are doing the CHOP. I realize this is controversial to some Native Americans. At the same time, they are named the Braves after the warrior Native American fighters, who in fact were highly skilled with their weapons and tools in defending their people and\or attacking their enemies. This is also part of history. Why should they not be allowed to do the CHOP because some people don't like it?
-
Would you stop it! I haven't had a work day lunch since Seattle passed an ordinance banning "Brown Bag" lunches.
You are not allowed to respond because of your pork eating patch!! ;D
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XYUy8vUymDs/TwbluyAI-lI/AAAAAAAAARw/UOXwrS-edl4/s320/The-Mario-Bros-mario-and-luigi-9298164-1955-2560.jpg)
Before someone loses their marbles here, there is an entire cottage industry that claims these caricatures are racist, anti-Italian, put Italian's in a bad light, demeaning, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
-
Speaking of the All Blacks...this happened yesterday in their match.
http://deadspin.com/streaker-absolutely-destroyed-by-security-at-all-blacks-1590945207
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XYUy8vUymDs/TwbluyAI-lI/AAAAAAAAARw/UOXwrS-edl4/s320/The-Mario-Bros-mario-and-luigi-9298164-1955-2560.jpg)
Before someone loses their marbles here, there is an entire cottage industry that claims these caricatures are racist, anti-Italian, put Italian's in a bad light, demeaning, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Again, doesn't really matter. Italians are a privileged ethnicity in American culture.
-
I was talking about when the name was chosen. Do you think they chose a name to be racist or ignorant? Sorry, I don't. Sure, the manifestation of the mascot took some turns that people could find offensive. That's often what mascots do. I can find people that think the Leprechaun at ND is a stereotype, the Boston Celtic mascot, how African Americans are portrayed in tv series, how middle age white guys are portrayed, how women are, etc.
I'm watching the Angels Braves game last night and they are doing the CHOP. I realize this is controversial to some Native Americans. At the same time, they are named the Braves after the warrior Native American fighters, who in fact were highly skilled with their weapons and tools in defending their people and\or attacking their enemies. This is also part of history. Why should they not be allowed to do the CHOP because some people don't like it?
To me it doesn't matter why the name was chosen, the results of the name being chosen do. And I really have no idea what was going through George Mashall's head when he decided changing from the Braves (a name which is much closer to honoring native americans) to a slur for native americans.
In the examples you gave, I have no issue with the Leprechaun, the Celtics, or middle aged white men being displayed in a stereotypical fashion. These are privileged groups and have a much easier time shrugging off the effects of these stereotypes. I do take issue with the way that African Americans and Women are often displayed on TV. Though I will add something here. The following is purely my opinion is not backed by any research or study. I hold comedy sacred. Comedians and comedic tv shows provide a valuable service by providing satire and social commentary. I am fine with comedians utilizing sterotypes. That is just me.
The chop is not a part of native american culture. It is a construction created by white Americans that celebrates an untrue stereotype that all native Americans carried tomahawks and scalped their enemies.
-
But now that I've read your most recent post about intent, say a bunch of fans of the Browns decided they were going to make their own mascot of or symbol of a player that was not Caucasian that you didn't agree with. It sounds like you are saying that means the name would have to be changed. I'm just curious how many does it take? 5% of people acting goofy, 10%, 30%?
I'm not trying to be cute, it's a legit question. You posted photos of guys in head dress. Sorry, I don't find that offensive. I'm sure some Native Americans do, I'm sure some Native Americans do not. You've been on record here suggesting that it doesn't matter if the majority of Native Americans are ok with it, but you will defend the smallest of numbers that are not. Well, that's noble and I tip my hat to you. I just wonder if that applies to everything in this situation, because the smallest number is 1. All is takes, is one person to be upset and outraged, and the power of 1 trumps all in that case.
I did post pictures of fans but they are not the central problem. You can't control fans. I could show up in a headdress and war paint at a Milwaukee Brewers game. That wouldn't be the Brewers fault, it would be my fault. The fault comes in when an organization creates a culture that promotes and encourages such behavior. Marquette sponsored one of the most racist mascots of all time. That is Marquette endorsing racism. The Indians created Chief Wahoo. That was them endorsing racism. The Redskins named themselves the Redskins. That is them endorsing racism. Once those organizations make these endorsements it encourages their fans to do the same. So your example about the Browns, no, I don't think they should shut it down. Those would be crazy fans not a racist organization.
There are several reasons why the headdresses and war paint are offensive. Chief among them is the fact that headdresses and war paint were often either symbols of authority for important members of a tribe or used in religious ceremonies. A fair comparison would be a team naming themselves the Muslims and their fans supporting them by painting their faces brown and wearing turbins and hijabs.
Let's change the conversation a bit. What is your hope? What is your end goal? Why is it so important to you that Snyder stands his ground and doesn't change? I know you have mentioned preserving native american tradition which is a noble goal. It also sounds like you are concerned that native american schools will be forced to change their mascots if the Washington mascot is changed, also a noble goal. Is there anything else?
-
Again, doesn't really matter. Italians are a privileged ethnicity in American culture.
This whole "privileged ethnicity" stuff is really beside the point. Anybody that defends the use of a racial slur for a team's nickname by comparing it to the "offense" of naming a team for an owner/coach (Browns) is not to be taken seriously. And the Mario Brothers, New Zealand All Blacks, Cincinnati Reds (guess Chico forgot about all the Communists offended by that nickname), etc, are equally inoffensive. Citing polls on the subject is absurd. There was a time that the pro slavery crowd won the polls. And the anti integration and anti interracial marriage crowd, too. Hard to believe, but when Chico was a little boy the polls would have agreed that homosexuality was a mental disease that could be cured. People on the side of basic human rights and dignity (liberals and conservatives alike) are, not coincidently, always ahead of the polls on this stuff and eventually prevail. This will be no different.
-
Again, doesn't really matter. Italians are a privileged ethnicity in American culture.
Doesn't matter, if someone is offended you said you would defend them. Who are you to say who is privileged and who isn't?
Now it sounds like what you are really saying is you will defend those who YOU feel are offended but only if YOU decide it is legitimate.
What if women decide they are fed up with the Vikings name, the Kings name, etc. What if they are Native American women, not just WASP women. Does that change your tune?
By the way, many Italians are going to disagree with your conjecture about who is privileged and who isn't. Are whites from Appalachia privileged? More whites in poverty (by double) than African Americans and significantly higher than Hispanics. Yes, because there are more whites, doesn't change the numbers. You're painting with too broad a brush again.
-
This whole "privileged ethnicity" stuff is really beside the point. Anybody that defends the use of a racial slur for a team's nickname by comparing it to the "offense" of naming a team for an owner/coach (Browns) is not to be taken seriously. And the Mario Brothers, New Zealand All Blacks, Cincinnati Reds (guess Chico forgot about all the Communists offended by that nickname), etc, are equally inoffensive. Citing polls on the subject is absurd. There was a time that the pro slavery crowd won the polls. And the anti integration and anti interracial marriage crowd, too. Hard to believe, but when Chico was a little boy the polls would have agreed that homosexuality was a mental disease that could be cured. People on the side of basic human rights and dignity (liberals and conservatives alike) are, not coincidently, always ahead of the polls on this stuff and eventually prevail. This will be no different.
LOL....choo chooo chooo....logic train missed a stop again.
You would be right about the polls as you stated in the past, IF the polls that I cited were of the general population. Of course, they weren't. The polls were of and for Native Americans, not anyone else. Just as if you did a poll a two hundred years ago with actual slaves and not everyone else, you would get a different response.
Good try. Choo choo....chugga chugga chugga...choo choo.
(http://feminazi.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/logic-detour.gif)
-
The chop is not a part of native american culture. It is a construction created by white Americans that celebrates an untrue stereotype that all native Americans carried tomahawks and scalped their enemies.
You haven't gotten the memo then, you're supposed to be outraged by this clear racist chant.
http://lastrealindians.com/chick-fil-a-uses-the-tomahawk-chop-to-profit-off-racism-perpetuated-by-native-mascots-by-danielle-miller/
-
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to serve on a panel discussion of Indian sports mascots.
I was the moderator. Leaders of two different Native American tribes were on the panel, as was the president of a professional sports franchise with an Indian mascot and a wealthy alumnus from a major university with an Indian mascot.
Both Native Americans talked about how hurt they were by much of the imagery - the tomahawk chants, the war dances, the Indian music at the stadiums, the references to "scalping," the drunk-looking Indian on the Indians' cap, "Redskins," etc.
The franchise president was generally sympathetic and said the organization would do everything it could to show respect for Native Americans, but there was no chance the nickname would be changed.
All the alumnus talked about was not messing with "tradition." Meaning, of course, the tradition enjoyed by white fans. He kept telling the Indians that they really had no right to feel insulted because no insult was intended.
Now, I am not trying to claim that my experience in this instance represents the majority of any group's feelings, because I don't know. Maybe the studies Chicos refers to are right and most Native Americans really enjoy being associated with "Redskins," Chief Wahoo and the tomahawk chop.
All I'll say is that after listening to what two actual, full-blooded Native Americans were really feeling - and also listening to the alumnus' justification for Indian imagery - I couldn't help but come away believing the imagery was utterly unnecessary and possibly hurtful.
-
You haven't gotten the memo then, you're supposed to be outraged by this clear racist chant.
http://lastrealindians.com/chick-fil-a-uses-the-tomahawk-chop-to-profit-off-racism-perpetuated-by-native-mascots-by-danielle-miller/
I think it's ok to do the Tomahawk Chop if you are a traitor.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3tUU-EOroIA/UszSDDw5nFI/AAAAAAAAAi8/_gq4NBSoBJw/s1600/tomahawk-chop-jane-fonda.jpg)
Or to refer to oneself as a half breed and dress up in outrageous Hollywood style native costume if you are Armenian. (Note the platform moccasins)
(http://rymimg.com/lk/f/l/e5f6fec7b40d2d165980839931d8beda/3356788.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJud8T4z3FA/U0fQPNIjg7I/AAAAAAAALao/pdUDM4XOZ4I/s1600/Cher+Dressed+To+Kill+Tour+Half+Breed.jpg)
-
LOL....choo chooo chooo....logic train missed a stop again.
You would be right about the polls as you stated in the past, IF the polls that I cited were of the general population. Of course, they weren't. The polls were of and for Native Americans, not anyone else. Just as if you did a poll a two hundred years ago with actual slaves and not everyone else, you would get a different response.
Good try. Choo choo....chugga chugga chugga...choo choo.
(http://feminazi.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/logic-detour.gif)
Well, back in the "good old days" of slavery, men only with the vote, laws against interracial marriage and homosexuality as a disease (and a disease of choice, LOL) there were plenty of slaves who spoke kindly of their masters, women who thought suffrage should be for men only, blacks and browns who thought mixin' the races was evil and homosexuals in treatment for their "disease". Still some of those mixed up people out there, but they're way out of the mainstream, on the wacky fringes where they belong. I don't need a poll to tell me if its a good or a bad idea for our nations capital's football team to use a racial slur for their nickname. Or for Cleveland's baseball club to use a goofy caricature for their mascot. Just a brain and a conscience.
In addition, anyone who compares Chief Blackhawk to Chief Wahoo or a football team named after a man (Browns) to one with a by definition racial slur for a nickname never bought a ticket on the logic train. But I did love the detour sign from your "feminazi" handbook. Very cute.
-
MU82, appreciate your input on this. Always good to hear.
I would only counter, it depends who was on your panel. As this CBS article explains, you could have had some of these Native Americans on the panel and come away with an entirely different point of view.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
-
Well, back in the "good old days" of slavery, men only with the vote, laws against interracial marriage and homosexuality as a disease (and a disease of choice, LOL) there were plenty of slaves who spoke kindly of their masters, women who thought suffrage should be for men only, blacks and browns who thought mixin' the races was evil and homosexuals in treatment for their "disease". Still some of those mixed up people out there, but they're way out of the mainstream, on the wacky fringes where they belong. I don't need a poll to tell me if its a good or a bad idea for our nations capital's football team to use a racial slur for their nickname. Or for Cleveland's baseball club to use a goofy caricature for their mascot. Just a brain and a conscience.
In addition, anyone who compares Chief Blackhawk to Chief Wahoo or a football team named after a man (Browns) to one with a by definition racial slur for a nickname never bought a ticket on the logic train. But I did love the detour sign from your "feminazi" handbook. Very cute.
Good try, your logic failed. YOU were the one that brought up the poll as silly and absurd and YOU brought in how people would have categorized slavery and homosexuality. Problem is, you used the entire population. The SI poll and the University of Pennsylvania polls were the Native American populations only...not anyone else as your little analogy explained.
As for your voting and suffrage remark, voting at the polls was limited, not answering polls.
I like thy hypocrisy of the Blackhawks and the Indians. There are Native Americans that say using their images IN ANY FORMAT as a mascot or representation is wrong. Sounds like you are saying those Native Americans are wrong, they can't be upset, they can only be upset about SOME Native American imagery that you agree with.
How very white and mighty of you. ;)
-
Keefe
Well done with Hanoi Jane and Cher. Especially with those two and their hypocrisy on display all the time. I was surprised you found an image of Cher, I had heard she moved to Europe from 2000 to 2008, maybe she returned.
-
The most hilarious part about this thread is that its a bunch of middle aged, upper middle class white men waxing philosophic about the merits and faults of Native American mascots, as if we have some sort of real perspective on the issue.
Well, take that back, the most hilarious part is Chicos suggesting that the Super Mario brothers is somehow analogous to Native American mascots.
-
The most hilarious part about this thread is that its a bunch of middle aged, upper middle class white men waxing philosophic about the merits and faults of Native American mascots, as if we have some sort of real perspective on the issue.
Well, take that back, the most hilarious part is Chicos suggesting that the Super Mario brothers is somehow analogous to Native American mascots.
Or that Irish people should be upset at Notre Dame for the Fighting Irish. Maybe we should change their name to the Redskins because everyone knows the Irish don't tan very well, we just get sunburnt.
-
I like thy hypocrisy of the Blackhawks and the Indians. There are Native Americans that say using their images IN ANY FORMAT as a mascot or representation is wrong. Sounds like you are saying those Native Americans are wrong, they can't be upset, they can only be upset about SOME Native American imagery that you agree with.
Since when is common sense hypocrisy? Kooks on both sides. Some offended by everything. Even worse, some (your camp) offended by nothing. I don't "agree with" or "disagree with" Native American imagery. I do, though, know the difference between an obvious caricature and a respectful artist's rendering. And I do know the difference between a term defined as a racial slur and ones that range from totally innocent to mildly distasteful. You don't (can't?) know the difference so any logical conclusion evades you as you go off on multiple tangents to obfuscate the obvious. You don't really think things through. Instead, you start from a position that any change in the social fabric is bad and then search for anyone and anything that might bolster your preconception. You're sadly a metaphor for our times, a hardliner much more interested in shouting "Look at me!" than one looking for logical solutions. Find an ultra safe district. Run for Congress. You'll fit in perfectly with crazies on either side of the aisle.
-
I have always enjoyed the British term for the French as "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys."
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKfs4ZnbNE
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKfs4ZnbNE
That was hilarious. And true.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKfs4ZnbNE
Time for Chicos to defend "Redskins" and poor Dan Snyder from the mean liberal media, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
-
Doesn't matter, if someone is offended you said you would defend them. Who are you to say who is privileged and who isn't?
Now it sounds like what you are really saying is you will defend those who YOU feel are offended but only if YOU decide it is legitimate.
What if women decide they are fed up with the Vikings name, the Kings name, etc. What if they are Native American women, not just WASP women. Does that change your tune?
By the way, many Italians are going to disagree with your conjecture about who is privileged and who isn't. Are whites from Appalachia privileged? More whites in poverty (by double) than African Americans and significantly higher than Hispanics. Yes, because there are more whites, doesn't change the numbers. You're painting with too broad a brush again.
I am nobody. I don't decide who is considered privileged. Scholars and academics who are much smarter than either of us who have dedicating their lives to this subject have decided that.
Yes Italian are considered privileged because they are Caucasian. Yes white Appalachians are considered privileged because they are Caucasian. Poverty is not the exclusive factor in deciding privileged. But what you may not realize is that African American men are privileged because they are men. Hispanic heterosexuals are privileged because they are not LGBTQ. Most everybody has privileged of some sort....it's just at different levels for different parts of their identity. But because race is the most visible of identities it is usually the most dominate factor in determining privilege.
Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "yes, there are more whites, doesn't change the numbers." I think you are saying that despite a higher percentage of minority populations living in poverty there are physically more whites in poverty. For that I would say again that poverty isn't the only factor in determining privilege. I would also say that percentage gives a more accurate portrayal of the privilege at play in each race. If you were curious, the percentages are 27.4% of African Americans, 26.6% of Latinos, 25.3% of Native Americans, 12.1% of Asian Americans, and 9.9% of Whites.
-
Chicos, you dodged my last question. I am curious, what is your end goal? What is your motivation? Sometimes we get so caught up in the details that we don't see that we want the same thing. I know you mentioned preserving Native American tradition which is an extremely noble goal and one that I think we can all agree on. I also have been getting the feeling that you are worried about Native Americans being forced to give up the Redskins mascot if this change gets made. I would definitely agree with that point. I don't think it would be right to force that change.
So, why don't you want the Redskins to change?
-
Time for Chicos to defend "Redskins" and poor Dan Snyder from the mean liberal media, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Did I hit your deadline?
I don't need to defend Redskins, the Native Americans do it every single day. HBO, though they are my client, I wouldn't exactly call them centrists would you?
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to acknowledge that Native American people are smart and can make their own decisions on what outrages them and what doesn't. That means recognizing ALL of their opinions, not just the cherry picked ones. Oh, and I'm not going to ignore the majority of them that find no problem with it and act high and mighty and pretend that they're stupid or just don't get it like us smart white guys...apparently only "SOME" Native Americans get it, but we're here to make sure the ones that don't are not going to suffer any longer. Furthermore, I'm not going to be an epic hypocritical douche and say it's ok to wear a Blackhawk on my sweater as a white guy hockey fan when "many" Native Americans find that abhorrent, but scream how terrible it is that North Dakota Fighting Sioux is used as a nickname. But to each their own. In my view, wear the Blackhawk, and be proud of it. Cheer for the Redskins, whether it is Washington or the Red Mesa High School (Native American) Redskins. Cheer for the Celtics, for the Black Stars (Ghana's team) or the All Blacks (New Zealand), or whomever you wish.
Makes you wonder why no Native American poll has been done recently on the Redskins name....crickets. Or, it has been done and they didn't like the result.
-
Did I hit your deadline?
I don't need to defend Redskins, the Native Americans do it every single day. HBO, though they are my client, I wouldn't exactly call them centrists would you?
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to acknowledge that Native American people are smart and can make their own decisions on what outrages them and what doesn't. That means recognizing ALL of their opinions, not just the cherry picked ones. Oh, and I'm not going to ignore the majority of them that find no problem with it and act high and mighty and pretend that they're stupid or just don't get it like us smart white guys...apparently only "SOME" Native Americans get it, but we're here to make sure the ones that don't are not going to suffer any longer. Furthermore, I'm not going to be an epic hypocritical douche and say it's ok to wear a Blackhawk on my sweater as a white guy hockey fan when "many" Native Americans find that abhorrent, but scream how terrible it is that North Dakota Fighting Sioux is used as a nickname. But to each their own. In my view, wear the Blackhawk, and be proud of it. Cheer for the Redskins, whether it is Washington or the Red Mesa High School (Native American) Redskins. Cheer for the Celtics, for the Black Stars (Ghana's team) or the All Blacks (New Zealand), or whomever you wish.
Makes you wonder why no Native American poll has been done recently on the Redskins name....crickets. Or, it has been done and they didn't like the result.
If a Native American group asked the Blackhawks to change their logo, I would support the Blackhawks honoring that request. In the meantime, I am a Chicago hockey fan. I am going to wear the sweater. I find nothing hypocritical about that. As far as I know, no such requests have been made of the Blackhawks organization. The same cannot be said for the Redskins. Further, the name itself is an ethnic slur. Black hawk was an actual person, a historical figure, and the team itself was named after a military unit named in his honor. Not quite in the same boat as "redskin." There really is no defense for using that word.
-
Chicos, you dodged my last question. I am curious, what is your end goal? What is your motivation? Sometimes we get so caught up in the details that we don't see that we want the same thing. I know you mentioned preserving Native American tradition which is an extremely noble goal and one that I think we can all agree on. I also have been getting the feeling that you are worried about Native Americans being forced to give up the Redskins mascot if this change gets made. I would definitely agree with that point. I don't think it would be right to force that change.
So, why don't you want the Redskins to change?
Because I don't think it should be changed. More importantly, because I happen to value the opinions of Native Americans that are fine with it and don't discard them as if they are stupid, moronic, or their opinions don't count because they don't agree with someone else.
Can't make it any more simple than that.
Also, the term racist is thrown around at every turn these days, mostly by one side of the political spectrum that no longer can defend many of their policies to the point that when someone else disagrees, the race card comes out. If you don't agree with their view points, you're a racist. Pathetically sad, but the bots just are what they are. Reflexive. Godwin 2.0.
Furthermore, I think political correctness is a crock. Hypocrisy even more of a crock. I thought it was a crock when MU gave up their name, so did most alumni.
-
Keefe
Well done with Hanoi Jane and Cher. Especially with those two and their hypocrisy on display all the time. I was surprised you found an image of Cher, I had heard she moved to Europe from 2000 to 2008, maybe she returned.
Cher is your typical Hollywood hypocrite. Hanoi Jane, on the other hand, is just a piece of sh1t.
Another do as I say and not as I do hero is James Earl Carter. Shortly after publicly branding the State of Israeli as a religiously intolerant, insensitive terrorist regime he headed over to Turner Field and did the tomahawk chop with his buddies Ted and Hanoi Jane. Hard to believe that man went to Annapolis.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Z6E98ZRaU1s/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fonda/fonda-glee-color-web.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3tUU-EOroIA/UszSDDw5nFI/AAAAAAAAAi8/_gq4NBSoBJw/s1600/tomahawk-chop-jane-fonda.jpg)
-
The many loves of Jane Fonda
http://www.indyeastend.com/Articles-i-2008-10-08-81334.113117-Sex-With-Jane-Fonda.html
-
Because I don't think it should be changed. More importantly, because I happen to value the opinions of Native Americans that are fine with it and don't discard them as if they are stupid, moronic, or their opinions don't count because they don't agree with someone else.
Can't make it any more simple than that.
Also, the term racist is thrown around at every turn these days, mostly by one side of the political spectrum that no longer can defend many of their policies to the point that when someone else disagrees, the race card comes out. If you don't agree with their view points, you're a racist. Pathetically sad, but the bots just are what they are. Reflexive. Godwin 2.0.
Furthermore, I think political correctness is a crock. Hypocrisy even more of a crock. I thought it was a crock when MU gave up their name, so did most alumni.
I, too am anti PC. And I agree that there are people on the left who can't use common sense in these matters. They are bound and determined to see racism where there is none. But guys like you, who insist that "Seminoles" = "Redskins" or Chief Blackhawk = Chief Wahoo make it very difficult on us. If you refuse to acknowledge racism when it's in the very definition of a word (Redskin) and you see Willie Wampum and Chief Wahoo as wonderful traditions that need to be preserved you're not fighting hypocrisy or being politically incorrect, you're being racist. Your explanation of your defense of a racist nickname and racist imagery ("I feel this way out of respect for my Native American brothers") would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
-
Cher is your typical Hollywood hypocrite. Hanoi Jane, on the other hand, is just a piece of sh1t.
Another do as I say and not as I do hero is James Earl Carter. Shortly after publicly branding the State of Israeli as a religiously intolerant, insensitive terrorist regime he headed over to Turner Field and did the tomahawk chop with his buddies Ted and Hanoi Jane. Hard to believe that man went to Annapolis.
I'm going to disagree with you here a bit.
I sincerely thank all of my fellow antiwar "degenerates, hippies, radicals and “bums” including Jane Fonda and Mr Kerry. Without them, there may have been 500,000 casualties rather than 200,000+ American kids wounded and dead.
The 'Hanoi Jane' meme was more myth kept alive by the right than steeped in reality. This is not to deny that allowing herself to be photographed on the tank were reprehensible. But for all intents and purposes, the war was over and within 8 months all troops were gone. And I am sure as well that very few people know why she was in N. Vietnam in the 1st place.
-
The most hilarious part about this thread is that its a bunch of middle aged, upper middle class white men waxing philosophic about the merits and faults of Native American mascots, as if we have some sort of real perspective on the issue.
Well, take that back, the most hilarious part is Chicos suggesting that the Super Mario brothers is somehow analogous to Native American mascots.
You missed the point....someone is always outraged. There were outraged Italians upset about those caricatures. Always, someone outraged.
What's best, however, is your typical view that you exposed. Apparently whites, especially white men, cannot have an opinion that is valid in the liberal sphere. Quite humorous, but liberal white guilt has corrupted many people. If it isn't Bush's fault, it certainly is some white guy's somewhere somehow. LOL
-
Cher is your typical liberal Hollywood hypocrite. Hanoi Jane, on the other hand, is just a piece of sh1t.
Another do as I say and not as I do hero is James Earl Carter. Shortly after publicly branding the State of Israeli as a religiously intolerant, insensitive terrorist regime he headed over to Turner Field and did the tomahawk chop with his buddies Ted and Hanoi Jane. Hard to believe that man went to Annapolis.
Fixed it for you
-
If a Native American group asked the Blackhawks to change their logo, I would support the Blackhawks honoring that request. In the meantime, I am a Chicago hockey fan. I am going to wear the sweater. I find nothing hypocritical about that. As far as I know, no such requests have been made of the Blackhawks organization. The same cannot be said for the Redskins. Further, the name itself is an ethnic slur. Black hawk was an actual person, a historical figure, and the team itself was named after a military unit named in his honor. Not quite in the same boat as "redskin." There really is no defense for using that word.
OK, start to support it. Native American groups have already asked that ALL imagery be removed....ALL. Indians, Braves, Blackhawks, etc.
Let's see you you do it. Afterall, it only takes one.
National pressure has been less on the Indians, Braves, Blackhawks and Chiefs. Obama and Reid didn't mention them. But the National Congress of American Indians, which bills itself as the nation's most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, has long called for the abolition of all such team names in pro sports.
"I say they're all equally offensive," Blackhorse said. "They all promote stereotypes of native people for profit. And that's not right."
Let's see some people walk the walk, which I know most of you will not.
-
I'm going to disagree with you here a bit.
I sincerely thank all of my fellow antiwar "degenerates, hippies, radicals and “bums” including Jane Fonda and Mr Kerry. Without them, there may have been 500,000 casualties rather than 200,000+ American kids wounded and dead.
The 'Hanoi Jane' meme was more myth kept alive by the right than steeped in reality. This is not to deny that allowing herself to be photographed on the tank were reprehensible. But for all intents and purposes, the war was over and within 8 months all troops were gone. And I am sure as well that very few people know why she was in N. Vietnam in the 1st place.
Never would have won WWII if people knew some of the true attrocities that we had to do to win. Back then, we fought to win wars, and sometimes that got ugly and nasty. Squirmy. You try to be ethical, moral, fight within the "rules", but it doesn't always work that way. Makes me wonder if we ever would have won, quite frankly.
As for Vietnam, this from 1995 hits home. Congratulations. You guys got an assist.
http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/
-
OK, start to support it. Native American groups have already asked that ALL imagery be removed....ALL. Indians, Braves, Blackhawks, etc.
Let's see you you do it. Afterall, it only takes one.
National pressure has been less on the Indians, Braves, Blackhawks and Chiefs. Obama and Reid didn't mention them. But the National Congress of American Indians, which bills itself as the nation's most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, has long called for the abolition of all such team names in pro sports.
"I say they're all equally offensive," Blackhorse said. "They all promote stereotypes of native people for profit. And that's not right."
Let's see some people walk the walk, which I know most of you will not.
Guy has a point. A third of my high school class was Indian. Is it hypocritical that I'm comfortable wearing my Blackhawks hat at the UC but not when I'm visiting my parents?
-
Guy has a point. A third of my high school class was Indian. Is it hypocritical that I'm comfortable wearing my Blackhawks hat at the UC but not when I'm visiting my parents?
Yes, but many of the hypocritical chuckleheads here will not grant him that point. If you have one group of folks here saying it doesn't matter if 65% of Native Americans are ok with Redskins, it's about the 35% that aren't. Well, if there are a bunch of Native Americans that find Braves, Blackhawks, Sioux, etc offensive what's the deal? Only NOW the opinion of these Native Americans doesn't count so they can wear their sweaters at a game?
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
That's why I keep it clean and easy. Wear whatever the hell you want and stop pretending to be the moral authority of racism interpretation when, in fact, many are perpetuating the same behavior in the eyes of some Native Americans that they are accusing others of. Walk the walk.
-
Never would have won WWII if people knew some of the true attrocities that we had to do to win. Back then, we fought to win wars, and sometimes that got ugly and nasty. Squirmy. You try to be ethical, moral, fight within the "rules", but it doesn't always work that way. Makes me wonder if we ever would have won, quite frankly.
That's garbage.
The crap we pulled in WWII had nothing to do with winning. Interning Japanese did not help the war effort in any way. It was wrong. And there was no reasonable justification for it.
And if that's not what you are talking about, what atrocities are you referring to? Really easy to justify something when you don't even specify what it is.
-
OK, start to support it. Native American groups have already asked that ALL imagery be removed....ALL. Indians, Braves, Blackhawks, etc.
Let's see you you do it. Afterall, it only takes one.
National pressure has been less on the Indians, Braves, Blackhawks and Chiefs. Obama and Reid didn't mention them. But the National Congress of American Indians, which bills itself as the nation's most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, has long called for the abolition of all such team names in pro sports.
"I say they're all equally offensive," Blackhorse said. "They all promote stereotypes of native people for profit. And that's not right."
Let's see some people walk the walk, which I know most of you will not.
That is honestly the first thing I've heard protesting the Blackhawks.
But if it is a legitimate quote from a legitimate Native American organization, then I think there needs to be a dialogue and the Blackhawks organization needs to listen.
There. I'm walking the walk.
-
Because I don't think it should be changed. More importantly, because I happen to value the opinions of Native Americans that are fine with it and don't discard them as if they are stupid, moronic, or their opinions don't count because they don't agree with someone else.
Can't make it any more simple than that.
What about the Native Americans who aren't fine with it? What you are saying is you are only listening to opinions that agree with what you have already decided is correct. Not a stellar example of self-reflection.
-
That is honestly the first thing I've heard protesting the Blackhawks.
But if it is a legitimate quote from a legitimate Native American organization, then I think there needs to be a dialogue and the Blackhawks organization needs to listen.
There. I'm walking the walk.
You're crawling, not walking. A legitimate Native American organization is upset, if you're going to stand tall you shouldn't be condoning the Blackhawks name or usage on the sweater. Afterall, SOMEONE is offended.
Or, as I do, wear what the hell you want and stop with the pout rage that everyone has.
-
That's garbage.
The crap we pulled in WWII had nothing to do with winning. Interning Japanese did not help the war effort in any way. It was wrong. And there was no reasonable justification for it.
And if that's not what you are talking about, what atrocities are you referring to? Really easy to justify something when you don't even specify what it is.
I'm talking on the battlefield. I have some wonderful books for you to read. Still a few vets that are around, very few, that will speak of it as well. We did what we had to do. War ain't pretty, but we used to fight it to win them.
-
Why is there no PC pressure on the state of Oklahoma. "Oklahoma" was derived from the Choctaw Indian words Okla, meaning "Red" and humma, meaning "Man". Red Man. That is racist and must be changed.
-
Chicago ABC News report in 2010.
http://abc7chicago.com/archive/7479527/
"I'm cheering for the Blackhawks, for the Hawks. I'm going to say the Hawks," said Cyndee Fox-Starr, a Native-American.
Fox-Starr is full blood from the Omaha and Ottawa tribes. She's also a huge hockey fan. Back in the 1950s, her dad played on an all Native-American team that skated in full head-dress at the old Chicago stadium.
"I'm really torn on the logo part," Fox-Starr said.
The team name is derived from Chief Blackhawk, a person, rather than a tribe. In the early 1800s, he fought expansion by white settlers into Illinois and surrounding states.
The hockey team's first owner commanded a World War II unit nicknamed "The Blackhawk Division," after Chief Blackhawk.
"The stance is very clear. We want the logo to change," said Joe Podlasek of the American Indian Center.
Podlasek runs that center in Chicago and was instrumental in the fight to get the University of Illinois to bench its mascot, Chief Illiniwek. He says what makes the Blackhawks a bit better is they don't use a mascot to dance around and, in his opinion, mock his heritage.
In the locker room, players are told not to step on the chief logo, and fans in the stands don't do a tomahawk chop, like at Braves games in Atlanta.
But the Blackhawk logo is still a problem for some.
"For us, that's one of our grandfathers. Would you do that with your grandfather's picture? Would Take it and throw it on a rug? Walk on it and dance on it?" Podlasek said.
Some hockey fans say they are torn between their love of a team and loyalty to their heritage.
"As long as they treat it with respect, that's fine by me," Hara Jonathan said.
A few years ago, the NCAA decided schools cannot use Indian names, logos or mascots without permission from the particular tribe.
A spokesman for the Chicago Blackhawks told ABC7 Chicago the team does not get a lot of complaints about its logo.
-
Sound familiar...respectful and proud. From Chicago Tribune last year.
Harjo said the Blackhawks have escaped similar scrutiny because hockey is not a cultural force on the level of football. But she said national American Indian organizations have called for an end to all Indian-related mascots and that she found the hockey team's name and Indian head symbol — designed by the original owner's wife — to be offensive.
"It lacks dignity," she said. "There's dignity in a school being named after a person or a people. There's dignity in a health clinic or hospital. There's nothing dignified in something being so named (that is used for) recreation or entertainment or fun."
Blackhawks Executive Vice President Jay Blunk responded that the team considered its logo to be "respectful and proud."
Robert Holden of the National Congress of American Indians said his group objects to "derogatory" nicknames, though that can be a complicated thing to pin down: The Seminole Tribe of Florida, for instance, supports Florida State University using Seminoles for its sports teams.
But Holden said Blackhawk is a name that should be retired, a view echoed by a namesake of the Sauk leader.
John Blackhawk is chairman of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, whose ancestors had an on-and-off alliance with Black Hawk. He said doing positive things for Chicago's American Indian community does not make up for a name and logo he considers inappropriate.
"We all do contributions, but we don't do it for the sake of wanting to be forgiven for something we've done that's offensive," he said.
"I think people will wake up eventually," he said. "People are getting louder. They're realizing that wearing someone else's culture has a negative effect."
-
That's garbage.
The crap we pulled in WWII had nothing to do with winning. Interning Japanese did not help the war effort in any way. It was wrong. And there was no reasonable justification for it.
And if that's not what you are talking about, what atrocities are you referring to? Really easy to justify something when you don't even specify what it is.
I don't know what atrocities Chico is talking about but I'm reasonably sure it's not the internment of Japanese American citizens. That was a knee jerk reaction and had nothing to do with us winning the war.
I would be interested as to what they are though - my Dad was a Marine lieutenant (made captain on the battlefield) who fought on Iwo Jima, Saipan and a couple of other fun spots. No war crimes on his record but maybe Chico knows something I don't.
-
Blackhawks can lead by example..... http://kcchronicle.com/2014/05/27/guest-view-blackhawks-can-lead-by-example/azhzedf/?__xsl=/print.xsl
Let's see it....let's see the talkers do the walking. ::)
-
Rating the most racist sports names and logos...Blackhawks near the top with some team called the Redskins.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115106/ranking-racist-sports-team-mascots-names-and-logos
Let's see the talkers do the walking. Hypocrisy central!
-
You're crawling, not walking. A legitimate Native American organization is upset, if you're going to stand tall you shouldn't be condoning the Blackhawks name or usage on the sweater. Afterall, SOMEONE is offended.
Or, as I do, wear what the hell you want and stop with the pout rage that everyone has.
See an unreasonable opinion on the fringes of a topic, take an equally unreasonable one on the other fringe. That will surely lead to a common sense compromise. Problem solving 101.
-
For what its worth, the Blackhawks have reached out to the American Indian Center of Chicago, who openly supports the logo (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-met-indian-mascots-20130619_1_american-indians-black-hawk-mascots)
That said, if there are legitimate concerns from recognized Native American groups about the current logo, I support changing it.
I actually really like this alternative logo that has been floating around on the interwebs for years now:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HDKB2up9IKE/S7G_dA_hU6I/AAAAAAAAAEs/iEIIxWupWKg/s320/1+chicagologo.png)
Not sure what else you want me to say to "walk the walk"
-
Why is there no PC pressure on the state of Oklahoma. "Oklahoma" was derived from the Choctaw Indian words Okla, meaning "Red" and humma, meaning "Man". Red Man. That is racist and must be changed.
Do they still sell "Red Man" chew? Back in my baseball playing days Red Man was my leaf of choice. At the time I thought nothing of it. I will admit that I gave up chewing not because of the offensive racial imagery, which it was, but because my wife made clear that my continued chewing had very specific consequences. Three children later I am pleased with my decision.
(http://chattycathiechatters.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/6066700944_27e0597faa_z.jpg)
(http://p2.la-img.com/218/2014/904005_1_l.jpg)
-
Do they still sell "Red Man" chew? Back in my baseball playing days Red Man was my leaf of choice. At the time I thought nothing of it. I will admit that I gave up chewing not because of the offensive racial imagery, which it was, but because my wife made clear that my continued chewing had very specific consequences. Three children later I am pleased with my decision.
(http://chattycathiechatters.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/6066700944_27e0597faa_z.jpg)
(http://p2.la-img.com/218/2014/904005_1_l.jpg)
That stuff is rough. I tried it in college and yacked everywhere Sandlot-style
-
(http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1369574630902340_animate.gif)
-
It's funny, now that a few Native American groups want the Blackhawks logo removed, things aren't so ironclad. Slippery slope. I guess their opinions don't matter in this case, only on matters about the DC football team or Cleveland Indians. THEY ARE WAY OVERSTEPPING THEIR BOUNDS WHEN IT COMES TO THE BLACKHAWKS. :P
-
I'm offended by the appalling lameness of that bird rendition of Chief Blackhawk.
-
What about the Native Americans who aren't fine with it? What you are saying is you are only listening to opinions that agree with what you have already decided is correct. Not a stellar example of self-reflection.
That is wholly incorrect. I said I listen to all of them, but I'm going with the majority. You, on the other hand, are going with the one that fits your line of thinking. Big difference.
Why does your 35% trump that of the 65% that say they are ok with it? Or let's flip it, say it is 65% that don't want it, why ignore the 35%?
Is it majority rules only when it suits your opinion, but it's tyranny of the majority when it does not? Sure sounds like it.
-
For what its worth, the Blackhawks have reached out to the American Indian Center of Chicago, who openly supports the logo (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-19/news/ct-met-indian-mascots-20130619_1_american-indians-black-hawk-mascots)
That said, if there are legitimate concerns from recognized Native American groups about the current logo, I support changing it.
I actually really like this alternative logo that has been floating around on the interwebs for years now:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HDKB2up9IKE/S7G_dA_hU6I/AAAAAAAAAEs/iEIIxWupWKg/s320/1+chicagologo.png)
Not sure what else you want me to say to "walk the walk"
If the VERY SAME organizations are asking to do away with Redskins and Blackhawks, and in some cases the EXACT same organizations and same people are quoted, how can justice not be done and honor their request?
For what it's worth, the Redskins have some support as well, yet I was told here that doesn't count. The UND Fighting Sioux had support 3 to 1 vote by the Sioux Tribal Councils in North Dakota, I was told that didn't count either. But the Blackhawks reaching out to Native American groups does? Again...sure seems like we have all kinds of double standards going on here. Tsk tsk.
Walk the walk, demand the change. Don't wear any Blackhawks stuff anymore, someone is offended. Demand the Chicago papers and tv stations not use their names on air like the meatheads in the media that won't publish the Redskins name in the paper...damn, that will show 'em.
I've given you a bunch of names and stories just in the last year on the Blackhawks name....someone is outraged, more than just someone. Here's your chance to do what is right. Sign that petition, burn that hat, drop those season tickets, refuse to go to any games or watch them on tv. Get those letter writing campaigns going.
-
I'm offended by the appalling lameness of that bird rendition of Chief Blackhawk.
Since the Chicago Blackhawks once had a Native American logo, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to move on to a new logo without it bringing up imagery or mental hallucinations of Native American imagery of the past. They cannot be separated.
Sincerely,
Marquette alumni that are for the name and logo change and couldn't accept a simple Warrior logo not depicted as a Native American
-
(http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1369574630902340_animate.gif)
Been there, don't want to be there again. Nothing like swallowing some chew.
-
Because I don't think it should be changed. More importantly, because I happen to value the opinions of Native Americans that are fine with it and don't discard them as if they are stupid, moronic, or their opinions don't count because they don't agree with someone else.
Can't make it any more simple than that.
Also, the term racist is thrown around at every turn these days, mostly by one side of the political spectrum that no longer can defend many of their policies to the point that when someone else disagrees, the race card comes out. If you don't agree with their view points, you're a racist. Pathetically sad, but the bots just are what they are. Reflexive. Godwin 2.0.
Furthermore, I think political correctness is a crock. Hypocrisy even more of a crock. I thought it was a crock when MU gave up their name, so did most alumni.
So if I understand you correctly, if studies showed that 50.1% of Native Americans said they wanted it changed, you would be for changing the mascot?
-
Rating the most racist sports names and logos...Blackhawks near the top with some team called the Redskins.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115106/ranking-racist-sports-team-mascots-names-and-logos
Let's see the talkers do the walking. Hypocrisy central!
Chicos, you are painting with a large brush as well. There are plenty of us who don't pick and choose.
Also, there is a big difference between Chief Wahoo and Chief Blackhawk. IMO, both should be changed. But change is a process. A universal decision to ban all native american imagery from mascots is unlikely. You start by battling the most overt symbols of racism (Willie Wampum, Chief Wahoo, Redskins) and then work your way down to the seemingly innocent (Chief Blackhawk, Seminoles, Braves, etc.)
-
Since the Chicago Blackhawks once had a Native American logo, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to move on to a new logo without it bringing up imagery or mental hallucinations of Native American imagery of the past. They cannot be separated.
Sincerely,
Marquette alumni that are for the name and logo change and couldn't accept a simple Warrior logo not depicted as a Native American
I didn't agree with that administration's decision, but I understand it. Look at us. It is 20 Fing years later and we still can't let it go. We have been the Golden Eagles for nearly my entire life and we still have alumni proudly sporting Willie Wampum as their hero, we still do war chants at basketball games, students still wear those stupid headresses and tomahawks to games. We went to a completely non-native mascot and they are still inseparable!
That being said, it was in the wrong decision IMO. I think the abrupt split may have fueled some of this clinging. Maybe if we switched to a non-native Warrior people would have been more willing to let go of the past. Maybe we could have had positive, educational moments about race relations and been able to teach our students and alumni why Willie Wampum was wrong. Maybe we could have truly apologized instead of hastily sweeping the past under the rug.
In the end, I think it all comes down to Willie Wampum. You don't have him, and I think the administration doesn't feel the need to make the switch. Having that racist mascot attached to our school...we really, and please forgive the possible classless metaphor...went off the reservation with that one.
-
Chicos,
I think you should relook at that survey data. You keep talking about serving the majority of Native Americans, but I don't think your survey proves what you think it does. The survey (this particular one) says 35% are against the mascot. This language is clear, these native americans are insulted and want it changed. 65% of Native Americans are ok with it. This language is not clear. Does ok with it really mean support it? Does it mean that they would be against it if it changed? Or does it mean they just don't care?
What if you broke down that 65% and you found out that a majority of that 65% truly didn't care one way or the other. It wouldn't affect their lives. Only a small majority really want to keep it.
I don't know if this is the case or not. I suspect it is. I think the numbers are probably something like 35% want it to change, 60% don't care, and 5% want it to stay.
Again, I don't if that is true or not, but if it was, would that change your mind?
Oh, and don't forget that bit I said earlier about those without privilege often being unwilling to speak out against those in privilege. Makes survey data on these issues terribly unreliable ;)
-
If the VERY SAME organizations are asking to do away with Redskins and Blackhawks, and in some cases the EXACT same organizations and same people are quoted, how can justice not be done and honor their request?
For what it's worth, the Redskins have some support as well, yet I was told here that doesn't count. The UND Fighting Sioux had support 3 to 1 vote by the Sioux Tribal Councils in North Dakota, I was told that didn't count either. But the Blackhawks reaching out to Native American groups does? Again...sure seems like we have all kinds of double standards going on here. Tsk tsk.
Walk the walk, demand the change. Don't wear any Blackhawks stuff anymore, someone is offended. Demand the Chicago papers and tv stations not use their names on air like the meatheads in the media that won't publish the Redskins name in the paper...damn, that will show 'em.
I've given you a bunch of names and stories just in the last year on the Blackhawks name....someone is outraged, more than just someone. Here's your chance to do what is right. Sign that petition, burn that hat, drop those season tickets, refuse to go to any games or watch them on tv. Get those letter writing campaigns going.
I just told you that if that is the case, then I support changing it. Did you not read what I wrote?
What else do you want?
I consider myself a Blackhawks fan but I'm just an average Joe with no leverage. I don't have season tickets to drop. I have attended two games in my lifetime and they were in literally the last row and I bought them on Stubhub. I can't withhold a sponsorship. I guess I could burn the 2 items of Blackhawks clothing I own but what change is that really going to affect? I don't understand what you are asking of me...
-
Never would have won WWII if people knew some of the true attrocities that we had to do to win. Back then, we fought to win wars, and sometimes that got ugly and nasty. Squirmy. You try to be ethical, moral, fight within the "rules", but it doesn't always work that way. Makes me wonder if we ever would have won, quite frankly.
As for Vietnam, this from 1995 hits home. Congratulations. You guys got an assist.
http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/
Thank you - but I already stated that as anti-war protesters, we helped shorten the war and saved the lives of American kids. And I refer to mainly poor and middle class kids since the Cheneys and Bushes of the world weren't going to let their kids get shot in some messy war.
Apparently some of you weren't satisfied with the sacrifice and would have been fine with thousands more.
And to compare Vietnam with WWII is beyond ridiculous.
-
Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams? ::)
-
I just told you that if that is the case, then I support changing it. Did you not read what I wrote?
What else do you want?
I consider myself a Blackhawks fan but I'm just an average Joe with no leverage. I don't have season tickets to drop. I have attended two games in my lifetime and they were in literally the last row and I bought them on Stubhub. I can't withhold a sponsorship. I guess I could burn the 2 items of Blackhawks clothing I own but what change is that really going to affect? I don't understand what you are asking of me...
What is the "if" part of the case. Done deal, some Native Americans are outraged. Honestly, it's not you that I'm worried about, it's the other morally superior souls here that need saving apparently. The ones that won't do a damn thing, but can't wait to tell others how to act.
-
Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams? ::)
I suggest you do your homework a bit more. I can think of one immediately. Try again.
-
Thank you - but I already stated that as anti-war protesters, we helped shorten the war and saved the lives of American kids. And I refer to mainly poor and middle class kids since the Cheneys and Bushes of the world weren't going to let their kids get shot in some messy war.
Apparently some of you weren't satisfied with the sacrifice and would have been fine with thousands more.
And to compare Vietnam with WWII is beyond ridiculous.
Weird, here I thought President Bush was a WWII pilot that actually got shot down while protecting his country.
You continue to miss the point....I'm not comparing the wars, I'm saying if people knew some of the things that were done during WWII there are those like you that would get awfully queasy. But, you've proven to have a lot of double standards already so why should this be any different. So, how about those racist Blackhawks?
This is always a fun interview from the Wall Street Journal about that war. Gets at the heart of the matter by question #2.
http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/
-
So what I'm hearing is Dan Snyder shouldn't change the Redskins because of World War II? Or was it because of Hanoi Jane?
(http://p.fod4.com/p/media/5c597eb60b/ZcfqBkqCSoeGmTSftrgo_Confused%20Joey%20Friends.gif)
-
Never would have won WWII if people knew some of the true attrocities that we had to do to win. Back then, we fought to win wars, and http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/
This is an excellent interview. It mirrors the comments of Gen Giap in a case study on Asymetric Warfare and targeting the enemies critical nodes we did at the Air War College. Giap noted that the NVA could not defeat the US militarily so they worked aggressively to undermine popular support for the war at home. Giap said that Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, the Weathermen, and did more damage than any campaign the NVA could have mounted against the American colossus.
And before x and others jump me I do not fault the anti-war protesters. What they were angry about was the senselessness of the war by body count as dictated by the political leadership. By 1968 more than 60% of all Americans knew a Joe who had been killed or wounded in Vietnam. The question that was left open was to what end?
I wish the military had clear, unambiguous ROE and the freedom to prosecute the war properly. If you ask our sons to go into harm's way you must not ask them to risk everything for nothing. The moral failure was with the political leadership who lacked the courage to make the correct decision. I leave it to the reader to determine what that decision might have been but it was not the neither in nor out policy adopted by the White House.
-
Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams? ::)
Like the Houston Honkies?
-
Anyone here wonder why there are no derogatory white names for any of these teams? ::)
Nimrods anyone?
....waiting for keefe to weigh in on our military changing the name of the Apache and Blackhawk helicopters
-
I suggest you do your homework a bit more. I can think of one immediately. Try again.
Really??? Who?
-
So what I'm hearing is Dan Snyder shouldn't change the Redskins because of World War II? Or was it because of Hanoi Jane?
(http://p.fod4.com/p/media/5c597eb60b/ZcfqBkqCSoeGmTSftrgo_Confused%20Joey%20Friends.gif)
This is what happens when Chico stops taking his meds.
-
So what I'm hearing is Dan Snyder shouldn't change the Redskins because of World War II? Or was it because of Hanoi Jane?
(http://p.fod4.com/p/media/5c597eb60b/ZcfqBkqCSoeGmTSftrgo_Confused%20Joey%20Friends.gif)
No, what you're hearing is that most Native Americans don't find it offensive and his customers, Redskins fans, certainly don't.
What you aren't hearing is from hypocrite Blackhawks fans like Lenny that disparage these Native Americans daily and don't take their wishes of removing the Blackhawks name entirely. Tsk tsk.
-
I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't understand why a high school, college or professional sports franchise would willingly keep a nickname that apparently offends at least 30% of the people in a given ethnic group.
It's really just a nickname. It just isn't all that important.
-
No, what you're hearing is that most Native Americans don't find it offensive care either way
FIFY.
and his customers, Redskins fans, certainly don't.
Yeah, and Brewers fans didn't think Braun juiced. And Marquette fans didn't think Willie Wampum was racist (some still cling to that)
But, you are correct. Snyder's customers are definitely pro-mascot (I assume). And because we live in a Capitalist society, he is making an economically sound decision to keep the nickname as is. However, if us like minded individuals keep protesting, it may put enough pressure on Roger Goddell to force a change. Because right now, more than half of Goddell's customer's (football fans) are against the mascot.
What you aren't hearing is from hypocrite Blackhawks fans like Lenny that disparage these Native Americans daily and don't take their wishes of removing the Blackhawks name entirely. Tsk tsk.
You can sit and call them hypocrites if you want, and you are in a sense correct. But not all activism has to be all or nothing. You keep looking at this issue as black and white. If you are against the Redskins, than you are against all native american themed mascots. That's true for some of us but not all.
This issue is a spectrum. One the extreme side there are the Redskins, Cheif Wahoo, Willie Wampum, etc. Towards the middle you have the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, etc. Towards the moderate side there's the Utah Utes and the Central Michigan Chippewas. It is possible for a supporter of this issue to "draw their line in the sand" somewhere between Chief Wahoo and the Atlanta Braves. Or between the Redskins and the Blackhawks. You can call that hypocritical if you want, I certainly don't agree with them, but it is a valid opinion.
You can even throw some of the examples you've listed onto this spectrum. If Mario/Luigi, Fighting Irish, and the Kings offend someone, they have a place on this spectrum. However, I think most scholars and academics would rank them far below the Utah Utes/CMU Chips level.
If you're curious, my "line in the sand" is somewhere between the Blackhawks and the Utes. I draw it there because I think teams named after specific tribes, with permission/financial compensation to said tribe, with strict guidelines about how fans are permitted to show their support, in an environment that fosters respect, can be legitimate ways to preserve and honor Native American tradition.
-
Actually, shouldn't us privileged whites be offended by the name Blackhawks?
I mean, after all, Chief Blackhawk was a Native American who killed our ancestors (admittedly, as we were trying to kill him), and aligned with the British in the war of 1812.
I hope teal isn't really necessary here!!
-
You can sit and call them hypocrites if you want, and you are in a sense correct. But not all activism has to be all or nothing. You keep looking at this issue as black and white. If you are against the Redskins, than you are against all native american themed mascots. That's true for some of us but not all.
This issue is a spectrum. One the extreme side there are the Redskins, Cheif Wahoo, Willie Wampum, etc. Towards the middle you have the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, etc. Towards the moderate side there's the Utah Utes and the Central Michigan Chippewas. It is possible for a supporter of this issue to "draw their line in the sand" somewhere between Chief Wahoo and the Atlanta Braves. Or between the Redskins and the Blackhawks. You can call that hypocritical if you want, I certainly don't agree with them, but it is a valid opinion.
You can even throw some of the examples you've listed onto this spectrum. If Mario/Luigi, Fighting Irish, and the Kings offend someone, they have a place on this spectrum. However, I think most scholars and academics would rank them far below the Utah Utes/CMU Chips level.
If you're curious, my "line in the sand" is somewhere between the Blackhawks and the Utes. I draw it there because I think teams named after specific tribes, with permission/financial compensation to said tribe, with strict guidelines about how fans are permitted to show their support, in an environment that fosters respect, can be legitimate ways to preserve and honor Native American tradition.
In no sense is Chico right to use the "H" word here. The idea that everything anybody ever has taken offense to is therefore offensive is absurd. So is the idea that nothing is offensive. Thoughtful and good people can differ over where to draw the line. That's not being hypocritical. That's using one's brain instead of reciting hackneyed old talking points.
As you say, we draw our lines differently. For me, slurs and goofy caricatures are out. Patently offensive. Other than that, I'm laissez-faire. I'll listen to arguments like yours against the Braves and Blackhawks, for example, but for now anyway I remain unconvinced.
-
In no sense is Chico right to use the "H" word here. The idea that everything anybody ever has taken offense to is therefore offensive is absurd. So is the idea that nothing is offensive. Thoughtful and good people can differ over where to draw the line. That's not being hypocritical. That's using one's brain instead of reciting hackneyed old talking points.
As you say, we draw our lines differently. For me, slurs and goofy caricatures are out. Patently offensive. Other than that, I'm laissez-faire. I'll listen to arguments like yours against the Braves and Blackhawks, for example, but for now anyway I remain unconvinced.
+1000
Common sense goes a long way.
-
This is an excellent interview. It mirrors the comments of Gen Giap in a case study on Asymetric Warfare and targeting the enemies critical nodes we did at the Air War College. Giap noted that the NVA could not defeat the US militarily so they worked aggressively to undermine popular support for the war at home. Giap said that Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, the Weathermen, and did more damage than any campaign the NVA could have mounted against the American colossus.
And before x and others jump me I do not fault the anti-war protesters. What they were angry about was the senselessness of the war by body count as dictated by the political leadership. By 1968 more than 60% of all Americans knew a Joe who had been killed or wounded in Vietnam. The question that was left open was to what end?
I wish the military had clear, unambiguous ROE and the freedom to prosecute the war properly. If you ask our sons to go into harm's way you must not ask them to risk everything for nothing. The moral failure was with the political leadership who lacked the courage to make the correct decision. I leave it to the reader to determine what that decision might have been but it was not the neither in nor out policy adopted by the White House.
I find no fault with what you wrote here. I think Gen. Giap's comments may have been a little self serving since it is always the end game in a long, drawn-out war to outlast the other side. Afghanistan used the same tactic against Russia.
I also don't question your opinions about Ms. Fonda. I also am not a big fan, but defended her just because there are so many untruths out there about her actions. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country who have not spent the time working with troops that she has. Does that justify the mistakes she made? That is for each to decide, but she is also not the monster the right has portrayed her as.
-
In no sense is Chico right to use the "H" word here. The idea that everything anybody ever has taken offense to is therefore offensive is absurd. So is the idea that nothing is offensive. Thoughtful and good people can differ over where to draw the line. That's not being hypocritical. That's using one's brain instead of reciting hackneyed old talking points.
As you say, we draw our lines differently. For me, slurs and goofy caricatures are out. Patently offensive. Other than that, I'm laissez-faire. I'll listen to arguments like yours against the Braves and Blackhawks, for example, but for now anyway I remain unconvinced.
Quite well said.
-
Common sense goes a long way.
How dare you suggest such a thing! For the love of God this is Scoop! You forget yourself
-
Native Americans (some) want Redskins changed. Native Americans (some) want Blackhawks change.
You're right, we draw different lines. When it is YOUR team, then hands off. When it is someone else's team, God forbid. Doesn't matter if the same Native Americans want both gone, tsk tsk.
What you describe as common sense, others will say hypocrisy. What you describe as not all that offensive (in your view), some Native Americans disagree.
Apparently they are just all too hot and bothered for some names, but not bothered enough for others. The good news is that we have arbiters such as yourself to help us decide.
-
Native Americans (some) want Redskins changed. Native Americans (some) want Blackhawks change.
It doesn't really surprise me that you don't get the difference.
A derogatory nickname vs. someone's actual name.
It is the equivalent of two teams called the Honkies and the Lincolns.
-
I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't understand why a high school, college or professional sports franchise would willingly keep a nickname that apparently offends at least 30% of the people in a given ethnic group.
It's really just a nickname. It just isn't all that important.
Tell that to the PC crowd who have their nose out of joint over it.
-
It doesn't really surprise me that you don't get the difference.
A derogatory nickname vs. someone's actual name.
It is the equivalent of two teams called the Honkies and the Lincolns.
Doesn't matter, these folks don't see the difference if they are offended. Some of them want it changed. You don't get to decide, they are the ones offended. Thus, your hypocrisy on this. They are upset about the imagery being used on a sweater, they don't feel it has a place. Why are they offbase if they claim any form of visualization of Native Americans for sports teams is demeaning? Why do you get to decide?
Your equivalencies are wrong, in their eyes. That's all that matters....apparently.
-
Native Americans (some) want Redskins changed. Native Americans (some) want Blackhawks change.
You're right, we draw different lines. When it is YOUR team, then hands off. When it is someone else's team, God forbid. Doesn't matter if the same Native Americans want both gone, tsk tsk.
What you describe as common sense, others will say hypocrisy. What you describe as not all that offensive (in your view), some Native Americans disagree.
Apparently they are just all too hot and bothered for some names, but not bothered enough for others. The good news is that we have arbiters such as yourself to help us decide.
People can be offended by whatever they choose. PETA may be offended by animals as mascots/nicknames. Muslims may be offended by a nickname like Crusaders. And on and on and on. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam. And to that I laugh and say "Get over yourself" and most of the world laughs with me. But I do draw a line. A common sense line that says no to racial slurs and other obviously inappropriate nicknames. So I'll say no to the Washington Redskins, Dagos, Ni$$ers, Co#%suckers, etc.. But, Lenny, you say, only 30% of the Co#%suckers find that nickname repugnant and want it changed. Most don't care, some even like it. Too bad, I still think it has to go. And it in no way makes me a hypocrite or someone disparaging of the co#%suckers who disagree with me. When you have no line, and insist that nothing, even a racial slur, is out of bounds you totally cede the moral high ground to the professionally, permanently offended. By being a pig and insisting on everything you'll end up with nothing except your morally superior attitude. Is that what you want?
-
Really??? Who?
Fighting Irish
Vancouver Canucks
Edmonton Eskimos
Etc, etc
-
People can be offended by whatever they choose. Muslims may be offended by a nickname like Crusaders.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!
Lenny, you got this one backwards. The Taliban began calling the coalition forces "Crusaders" which has been a term of hate for infidels for centuries. The Taliban added "pork-eating" for extra measure in their polemic of hatred for us. The aim point on "Pork Eating Crusader" is on American troops. It is so absurdly strange that it has been embraced by American, British, Danish, Polish, Japanese, German, etc... troops in the ISAF.
People like that idiot brewcity couldn't see that important distinction.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!
Lenny, you got this one backwards. The Taliban began calling the coalition forces "Crusaders" which has been a term of hate for infidels for centuries. The Taliban added "pork-eating" for extra measure in their polemic of hatred for us. The aim point on "Pork Eating Crusader" is on American troops. It is so absurdly strange that it has been embraced by American, British, Danish, Polish, Japanese, German, etc... troops in the ISAF.
People like that idiot brewcity couldn't see that important distinction.
Crash - as I said, I don't give a shyte if some Muslims are offended by the nickname "Crusaders" - to me that's their problem and they're welcome to it.
-
People can be offended by whatever they choose. PETA may be offended by animals as mascots/nicknames. Muslims may be offended by a nickname like Crusaders. And on and on and on. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam. And to that I laugh and say "Get over yourself" and most of the world laughs with me. But I do draw a line. A common sense line that says no to racial slurs and other obviously inappropriate nicknames. So I'll say no to the Washington Redskins, Dagos, Ni$$ers, Co#%suckers, etc.. But, Lenny, you say, only 30% of the Co#%suckers find that nickname repugnant and want it changed. Most don't care, some even like it. Too bad, I still think it has to go. And it in no way makes me a hypocrite or someone disparaging of the co#%suckers who disagree with me. When you have no line, and insist that nothing, even a racial slur, is out of bounds you totally cede the moral high ground to the professionally, permanently offended. By being a pig and insisting on everything you'll end up with nothing except your morally superior attitude. Is that what you want?
I think, at times, you are making a common sense argument. Unfortunately, many are not and it is an all or nothing scenario, and that is part of my issue. You basically are saying that those Native American groups that want all Native American imagery gone, have ceded their moral authority. Is that correct? And by what honor do you get to make that assertion on their behalf?
What I want? Simple. It's a private matter. Period. End. Of. Story. You want to call your team the Cowboys even though girls might not like it, fine. You want to call yourself Crusaders, Catholics, Banana Slugs, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Broncos, I don't care.
I especially don't like seeing people that have not one drop of Native American blood in them getting to tell actual Native Americans that a term is a slur, when they don't think it is. You are essentially telling them that your opinion is superior to theirs, that they are dumb. That, is where you lose the moral high ground.
-
Crash - as I said, I don't give a shyte if some Muslims are offended by the nickname "Crusaders" - to me that's their problem and they're welcome to it.
Well, as a Pork Eating Crusader I thank you for the clarification.
But think of the irony - Islamic fundamentalists have called non-believers "Crusaders" for a thousand years. And some people are offended that the victims of that hateful polemic adopt the very term that was meant to diminish their humanity? I don't get their point.
"Hey! You can't find humor in coopting our message of hate! How dare you...you...you..PORK EATING CRUSADER!"
Anyone who thinks Prince Harry or Gen Odierno are religious intolerants because they have that patch are idiots.
-
So this is still going, eh?
-
People can be offended by whatever they choose. PETA
The PETA reference made me recall a stunning episode from 1995 when I was living in Hongkong. A group of us popped out for lunch and were headed down Queen's Road Central when about 8 drop dead gorgeous, long-stemmed fashion model quality but with tits women began a PETA-sponsored anti fur protest right there in the heart of Hongkong. Completely buck naked but for their smiles these women were upholding a cause whose message really didn't matter.
One of my colleagues commented as we entered the restaurant, "well, I rather want this PETA to continue their campaign at least fortnightly."
-
So this is still going, eh?
It will be until liberals can take another scalp, then they will move on to the next outrage.
-
Fighting Irish
Vancouver Canucks
Edmonton Eskimos
Etc, etc
These aren't "derogatory white names."
The first two are nationalities.
The third is Native American.
-
These aren't "derogatory white names."
The first two are nationalities.
The third is Native American.
In your opinion. There are people that do find those terms derogatory and associate with white, that's the point. The logo used for Fighting Irish is a white man. Canuck is considered an ethnic slur originally against French WHITE Canadians.
Eskimos are Native American, I agree, but some can be categorized as mixed caucasion. Never heard the term blonde eskimo? If you wish, happy to remove that one.
Point is, all in the eye of the beholder.
-
if "thee" have the power to giveth, "thee" has the power to taketh away. careful what one wishes for. if something were deemed to be "racist" or inappropriate, the people will speak with their wallets
-
if "thee" have the power to giveth, "thee" has the power to taketh away. careful what one wishes for. if something were deemed to be "racist" or inappropriate, the people will speak with their wallets
Unless they are part of the great unwashed and they don't know better, then the elite and unsullied have to guide them and show them the errors of their ways.
-
Fighting Irish
Vancouver Canucks
Edmonton Eskimos
Etc, etc
Wow!!
Irish is a derogatory term? Then, I'm guessing you are offended when you are called an American.
Canucks? Again, your white-centic sensibility is leaking through. (Don't tell no one, but all Canadians aren't white). Canuck is a term for Canadian - doesn't matter whether they are white, black, eskimo, indian, etc.
Eskimo? Don't have any clue what your problem is with them. But two things. #1 - they aren't white and #2 - I don't know what they have ever done to you to think that the word Eskimo is derogatory. Unless their mascot is clubbing baby seals to death.
I'm surprised you aren't leading the fight to shut down American University. How dare they use such a derogatory term for their name.
-
Unless they are part of the great unwashed and they don't know better, then the elite and unsullied have to guide them and show them the errors of their ways.
for those of you from rio linda, that means INDOCTRINATION. there are veys and there are other veys. and some of zeez are not so pleasant
-
for those of you from rio linda
Did you buy some land from Ricky Roma?
One of my very favorite movies from one of my wife's favorite playwrights. David Mamet is an American treasure.
-
Did you buy some land from Ricky Roma?
One of my very favorite movies from one of my wife's favorite playwrights. David Mamet is an American treasure.
nope, but you got me to look it up and looks quite interesting/entertaining and thanks for the heads-up. i'll watch out for this ricky character as i am looking to buy another house. the phrase is actually from rush limbaugh(oh no, not one of those guys) as he playfully refers to rio linda as a place where low info people reside. so he jokingly spells things out a little more for the 3 or 4 from rio linda who might be listening in.
-
Wow!!
Irish is a derogatory term? Then, I'm guessing you are offended when you are called an American.
Canucks? Again, your white-centic sensibility is leaking through. (Don't tell no one, but all Canadians aren't white). Canuck is a term for Canadian - doesn't matter whether they are white, black, eskimo, indian, etc.
Eskimo? Don't have any clue what your problem is with them. But two things. #1 - they aren't white and #2 - I don't know what they have ever done to you to think that the word Eskimo is derogatory. Unless their mascot is clubbing baby seals to death.
I'm surprised you aren't leading the fight to shut down American University. How dare they use such a derogatory term for their name.
A bit disingenious, even for you.
1) Funny, you left out a part of it. FIGHTING. I keep hearing words have meanings.
FIGHTING IRISH, which goes back to a time when the Irish were labeled as drunks that fought in this country because they had too much to drink. The name isn't Irish, it is FIGHTING Irish. Before you get too wound up, I know the origins of the name for Notre Dame Fighting Irish, but as I've also been told here, "definitions change".
2) TODAY, the term is for Canadians and it is considered derogatory. The origins of the word were for WHITE French Canadians. Please, know and learn your history.
3) I don't find Eskimo's derogatory, nor do I find Canucks or FIGHTING IRISH derogatory....SOME PEOPLE, do. So, no, Eskimos did nothing to me, neither have Redskins. You are wrong about Eskimos being solely white. You are also wrong about it being derogatory to some people. Not surprising. The preferred word is Inuit, as Eskimo is considered a pejorative. Think "Oriental" instead of Asian. There are actually three main peoples that are lumped into Eskimos, Inuit, Yupik and the Aleut.
You are welcome.
-
Did you buy some land from Ricky Roma?
One of my very favorite movies from one of my wife's favorite playwrights. David Mamet is an American treasure.
Also one of my favorite movies of all time. It's one of the few times I can watch Alec Baldwin on the big screen and not get queasy. Pacino is great as Roma. Tremendous cast, wonderful writing.
-
Also one of my favorite movies of all time. It's one of the few times I can watch Alec Baldwin on the big screen and not get queasy. Pacino is great as Roma. Tremendous cast, wonderful writing.
Glengarry Glen Ross has stellar dialogue and each role was cast perfectly. Lemmon and Arkin are particularly wonderful together...Mamet's precision of script has never been done better. Poetry in motion.
Everyone remembers Baldwin's scene but the magic is in how Mamet etches pathos and poignancy into the discourse. Spacey was exceptionally vile as the office manager and his last statement to Lemmon is one of the most devastating putdowns ever: "Because I don't LIKE you!" Crushing. If one is not totally devoid of feeling by the end of that play you missed it completely.
-
Eskimo? Don't have any clue what your problem is with them. But two things. #1 - they aren't white and #2 - I don't know what they have ever done to you to think that the word Eskimo is derogatory. Unless their mascot is clubbing baby seals to death.
They apparently prefer to be referred to as "Inuit" and consider Eskimo to be a derogatory term. I've read one article on the matter, so I'm hardly an expert
-
They apparently prefer to be referred to as "Inuit" and consider Eskimo to be a derogatory term. I've read one article on the matter, so I'm hardly an expert
We sent some time at Cold Lake CFB, AB which is way the hell up there. During our In-Briefing our hosts said that we should not say "Indian" but, rather, "First Nations." Also, there were many Inuit in the area so we should use that term rather than anything else.
In Singapore, which is multi-racial and has a large Indian community, the term for Native Americans is "Red Indian." Malays will also refer to an ethnic Chinese male as, "Chinaman." At first I thought it odd but then noticed that even ethnic Chinese use that term to describe one of their own.
-
Breaking News: Washington Redskins drop the word "Washington" from their name because it's embarrassing.
-
Glengarry Glen Ross has stellar dialogue and each role was cast perfectly. Lemmon and Arkin are particularly wonderful together...Mamet's precision of script has never been done better. Poetry in motion.
Everyone remembers Baldwin's scene but the magic is in how Mamet etches pathos and poignancy into the discourse. Spacey was exceptionally vile as the office manager and his last statement to Lemmon is one of the most devastating putdowns ever: "Because I don't LIKE you!" Crushing. If one is not totally devoid of feeling by the end of that play you missed it completely.
I agree with everything you say here. Amazing writing, acting, directing, timing, interactions, everything.
I will add that everyone remembers Alec Baldwin's scene because, IMHO, it is among the best -- or at least most intense -- 7 minutes in movie history.
In doing a little research on it a few years ago, I learned that there was no Baldwin character in the play. Mamet was extremely loyal to the play, but it was too short to be a movie and he had to add something. So that's what he added, which says as much about Mamet's incredible talent as anything.
I have lots of friends who don't like Alec Baldwin, not as a person or an actor. I don't know him as a person (though he does seem to be a tool), but he has done some very good acting, including lots of his stuff on 30 Rock. Anyway, for those who think Baldwin can't act at all, I show them that 7-minute, 8-second clip from Glengarry Glen Ross. Even they can only say, "Wow."
-
I agree with everything you say here. Amazing writing, acting, directing, timing, interactions, everything.
I will add that everyone remembers Alec Baldwin's scene because, IMHO, it is among the best -- or at least most intense -- 7 minutes in movie history.
In doing a little research on it a few years ago, I learned that there was no Baldwin character in the play. Mamet was extremely loyal to the play, but it was too short to be a movie and he had to add something. So that's what he added, which says as much about Mamet's incredible talent as anything.
I have lots of friends who don't like Alec Baldwin, not as a person or an actor. I don't know him as a person (though he does seem to be a tool), but he has done some very good acting, including lots of his stuff on 30 Rock. Anyway, for those who think Baldwin can't act at all, I show them that 7-minute, 8-second clip from Glengarry Glen Ross. Even they can only say, "Wow."
You are correct on Baldwin' Blake character. We saw Jeffrey Richards' Broadway production after the film and Blake wasn't part of that cast.
Mamet's work is characterized by its crisp, precise dialogue and the Blake scene is especially electric.
"First prize is a new car. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is You're Fired!"
"Nice guy? I don't give a sh1t! Good father? F UCK YOU! Go home and play with your kids!"
-
You are correct on Baldwin' Blake character. We saw Jeffrey Richards' Broadway production after the film and Blake wasn't part of that cast.
Mamet's work is characterized by its crisp, precise dialogue and the Blake scene is especially electric.
"First prize is a new car. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is You're Fired!"
"Nice guy? I don't give a sh1t! Good father? F UCK YOU! Go home and play with your kids!"
I've had two bosses like this. Sales guys can make a lot of money which pisses a lot of people off (why, I don't know), but they also have crazy pressures and get to go to work in those type environments. You're as good as your last sale or your last quarter. Don't perform, good bye. No tenure, no union, no nice guy bonus. Perform or gone.
-
You are correct on Baldwin' Blake character. We saw Jeffrey Richards' Broadway production after the film and Blake wasn't part of that cast.
Mamet's work is characterized by its crisp, precise dialogue and the Blake scene is especially electric.
"First prize is a new car. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is You're Fired!"
"Nice guy? I don't give a sh1t! Good father? F UCK YOU! Go home and play with your kids!"
People use the term "jaw dropped" but usually don't mean it literally. When I saw GGR in the theater, and that scene came on, my jaw dropped. I practically had to pick it up from the floor.
"You see this watch? This watch costs more than your car!"
When I bought a Hyundai three years ago, my wife was skeptical because Blake ripped Hyundais in his scene!
-
When I bought a Hyundai three years ago, my wife was skeptical because Blake ripped Hyundais in his scene!
I am still laughing 5 minutes later at this
-
I am still laughing 5 minutes later at this
Yeah, she's like, "We can't get a Hyundai. Alec Baldwin's watch cost more than a Hyundai!"
-
Nimrods anyone?
....waiting for keefe to weigh in on our military changing the name of the Apache and Blackhawk helicopters
LOL. Here you go
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/27/army-vets-blast-pc-police-for-attacking-apache-chi/
-
Patent office got ZERO complaints about the name prior to the decision. LOL
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/
-
Patent office got ZERO complaints about the name prior to the decision. LOL
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/
Honest question (because I have no idea):
Does the patent office normally receive consumer complaints for this kind of stuff?
I mean, if I really hated the Redskins, I'm not sure I'd be calling the patent office about it.
-
Patent office got ZERO complaints about the name prior to the decision. LOL
Definitely in the running for most absurd statement of the year so far.
Did anyone in the country even know that the patent office has anything to do to this?
And, even if they did, why would they complain to the patent office?
If you don't like the title of a book, do you complain to the U.S. Copyright Office?
-
LOL...Washington Times.
Figures they would manufacture such an irrelevant statistic.
Did you also know that the Department of Commerce had ZERO formal complaints filed to its office about segregation at lunch counters in the 1950s?
I guess that means its ok.
See what I did there?
-
LOL...Washington Times.
Figures they would manufacture such an irrelevant statistic.
Did you also know that the Department of Commerce had ZERO formal complaints filed to its office about segregation at lunch counters in the 1950s?
I guess that means its ok.
See what I did there?
Thanks, Chicos ;D
-
Honest question (because I have no idea):
Does the patent office normally receive consumer complaints for this kind of stuff?
As I mentioned in the other thread, the Patent Office does not have a mechanism to receive comments from the general public as it is not part of their decision making process.
Chicos loves to build strawmen...but this is the strawiest one he has built in quite a while.
-
As I mentioned in the other thread, the Patent Office does not have a mechanism to receive comments from the general public as it is not part of their decision making process.
Chicos loves to build strawmen...but this is the strawiest one he has built in quite a while.
You should change your name to Sultan of Strawmen
-
LOL...Washington Times.
Figures they would manufacture such an irrelevant statistic.
Did you also know that the Department of Commerce had ZERO formal complaints filed to its office about segregation at lunch counters in the 1950s?
I guess that means its ok.
See what I did there?
I did see what you did there, a publication you don't like therefore it doesn't count. You used to do that last year on a few stories and then I would provide the same stories written by the AP or whatever, and you would then "recognize them". Comical.
The problem with your analogy, much like many of your failed arguments here (like Eskimo being one of the most recent), is that there were claims of many complaints about the name to the Patent Office. Now, a fine publication like the Washington ComPost (see what I did there) would have filed a Freedom of Information Act to determine if that statement was true. They didn't. The Washington Times, the paper you don't like, DID. Hmm. Now you don't like the result. Problem is, the result doesn't jive with one of the reasons given for turning down the trademark. Or, in other words, they were caught with their pants down. Seems to be very common place these days.
-
Honest question (because I have no idea):
Does the patent office normally receive consumer complaints for this kind of stuff?
I mean, if I really hated the Redskins, I'm not sure I'd be calling the patent office about it.
Some do, recently there was a list of names that actually were NOT denied trademark access DESPITE complaints about the trademarks. Nevertheless, what's more important in my view is that complaints were supposed to be big reason why the trademark was revoked.
In fact, the USPTO issued this as part of their statement : "The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent's services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990. There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial"
So apparently complaints meant something, so much so that they pulled data out of their arse to put it in their filing. Where they got these data points, well we don't know. What we do know, is that no complaints went to the USPTO about Redksins, despite complaints about other names which the USPTO ignored.
In summary, complaints about some names received at USPTO don't mean anything and trademark approved. No complaints at USPTO, too bad we're going to reject a trademark anyway based on other numbers which no one can reproduce or source in any fashion.
-
As I mentioned in the other thread, the Patent Office does not have a mechanism to receive comments from the general public as it is not part of their decision making process.
Chicos loves to build strawmen...but this is the strawiest one he has built in quite a while.
UHm, categorically...Bullshyte. The USPTO admitted to approving some trademarks despite protests labeled against those trademarks. Most of them porn products, adult products, etc. Now they claim they don't have a mechanism to take these complaints, but they did for those other names.
What's even more, the USPTO admits they got complaints AFTER THEIR DECISION. So they had a mechanism to count those, but didn't have a mechanism before? They were for it before they were against it?
LOL. Seriously. YOU. Can't. Make. THIS. Crap. Up.
-
I did see what you did there, a publication you don't like therefore it doesn't count. You used to do that last year on a few stories and then I would provide the same stories written by the AP or whatever, and you would then "recognize them". Comical.
The problem with your analogy, much like many of your failed arguments here (like Eskimo being one of the most recent), is that there were claims of many complaints about the name to the Patent Office. Now, a fine publication like the Washington ComPost (see what I did there) would have filed a Freedom of Information Act to determine if that statement was true. They didn't. The Washington Times, the paper you don't like, DID. Hmm. Now you don't like the result. Problem is, the result doesn't jive with one of the reasons given for turning down the trademark. Or, in other words, they were caught with their pants down. Seems to be very common place these days.
Its not that I don't like them, its that its not real journalism. It is owned and operated by the Unification Church, founded by that Church's founder as a mouthpiece of the Church to "let the American people know about God," according to its founder. So yeah, not real journalism.
I'm fine with conservative journalism when its actually done by journalists.
-
Its not that I don't like them, its that its not real journalism. It is owned and operated by the Unification Church, founded by that Church's founder as a mouthpiece of the Church to "let the American people know about God," according to its founder. So yeah, not real journalism.
I'm fine with conservative journalism when its actually done by journalists.
It was started by them, but was sold to News World Communications which owns UPI among other news outlets, mostly international.
Ultimately, I don't care who owns them, they did something the Post should have done. I don't care if it is a citizen journalist, or a guy pretending to be a pimp and bringing down Acorn, the truth is the truth. Since so many media outlets have taken time off the last number of years, it is good to see some out there that are not. As for not real journalists, well they've had quite a list of columnists and opinion writers over the years that have also written for the NY Times, WSJ, Dallas Morning News, Sacramento Tribune, etc, etc. Journalists.
-
It was started by them, but was sold to News World Communications which owns UPI among other news outlets, mostly international.
Ultimately, I don't care who owns them, they did something the Post should have done. I don't care if it is a citizen journalist, or a guy pretending to be a pimp and bringing down Acorn, the truth is the truth. Since so many media outlets have taken time off the last number of years, it is good to see some out there that are not. As for not real journalists, well they've had quite a list of columnists and opinion writers over the years that have also written for the NY Times, WSJ, Dallas Morning News, Sacramento Tribune, etc, etc. Journalists.
Washington Times is not a well-respected publication, and not just because of its right-leaning ways. Same is true of the New York Post, another horrible newspaper that favors the right. The Wall Street Journal and San Diego Union-Tribune -- both right-leaning -- are widely respected.
UPI hasn't been a factor for several decades, not even internationally where it is dwarfed in scope by AP and Reuters, among others.
I'm not commenting at all about the subjects they treat that are being argued about in this thread. I'm simply a registered Independent and former newspaper journalist who is setting the record straight on the publications themselves.
-
Washington Times is not a well-respected publication, and not just because of its right-leaning ways.
Funny you mention this. The Washington Times is the daily of choice at the Pentagon. Personally, I still prefer the Post. It is a world class publication regardless of political bent. I don't think the same can be said for the Times.
-
Funny you mention this. The Washington Times is the daily of choice at the Pentagon. Personally, I still prefer the Post. It is a world class publication regardless of political bent. I don't think the same can be said for the Times.
I wouldn't disagree with that statement or MU82's. Question I have is why the Post didn't expand on the story and do a simple FOIA request, but the Times did. Actually, no need to answer that question because the answer is obvious.
I'm always amazed at how the "less respected" or smaller news outlets go out and hustle, find stuff that the...ahem...the bigger guys don't find or REFUSE to explore. Maybe if some of these guys actually went against their beliefs and acted as journalists, they would get some more respect. Let's not forget, as much as MU82 and others want to say how it is not respected, the media in generals is not respected at all. Again, reasons are obvious.
Confidence in newspapers down to 22%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/04zos2e2weyy0fzpqwevfq.png)
-
I wouldn't disagree with that statement or MU82's. Question I have is why the Post didn't expand on the story and do a simple FOIA request, but the Times did. Actually, no need to answer that question because the answer is obvious.
I'm always amazed at how the "less respected" or smaller news outlets go out and hustle, find stuff that the...ahem...the bigger guys don't find or REFUSE to explore. Maybe if some of these guys actually went against their beliefs and acted as journalists, they would get some more respect. Let's not forget, as much as MU82 and others want to say how it is not respected, the media in generals is not respected at all. Again, reasons are obvious.
Confidence in newspapers down to 22%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/04zos2e2weyy0fzpqwevfq.png)
Newspapers are in big trouble, we all know that. It's the major reason I'm an ex-journalist!
I'd guess that the NYTimes and Washington Post have broken more legitimate, big stories in any year than the little ones have in any decade. Much of that has to do with resources, of course.
-
I'm always amazed at how the "less respected" or smaller news outlets go out and hustle, find stuff that the...ahem...the bigger guys don't find or REFUSE to explore.
The Times went out and hustled for this because they hustle after EVERY story that makes liberals look bad. Period. End of story.
Why would you be amazed over that? It is what they do.
-
Newspapers are in big trouble, we all know that. It's the major reason I'm an ex-journalist!
I'd guess that the NYTimes and Washington Post have broken more legitimate, big stories in any year than the little ones have in any decade. Much of that has to do with resources, of course.
That's part of it, but there is also stories they refuse to cover or ideological reasons or will only cover on the periphery and not dig. Sheryl Atkinson who just quit CBS tells it quite nicely. It's sad, but that's the state of journalism in this country and has been for a long time. A classic example is the immigration flood that has been going for months and only the small guys covered it, until the big guys could no longer ignore it. Makes you wonder how many stories are buried, as Atkinson puts it, because they are cozy and told to bury them. That's the sad part.
It's not just newspapers as the graph clearly shows. Birds of a feather certainly flock together on who supports it, however.
-
That's part of it, but there is also stories they refuse to cover or ideological reasons or will only cover on the periphery and not dig. Sheryl Atkinson who just quit CBS tells it quite nicely. It's sad, but that's the state of journalism in this country and has been for a long time. A classic example is the immigration flood that has been going for months and only the small guys covered it, until the big guys could no longer ignore it. Makes you wonder how many stories are buried, as Atkinson puts it, because they are cozy and told to bury them. That's the sad part.
It's not just newspapers as the graph clearly shows. Birds of a feather certainly flock together on who supports it, however.
For all of your political bluster over this, there really is a very, very simple answer. And it applies to all sides.
It is all about access!! Every week on Meet the Press or Fox's Sunday show or ABC's show, there are lies being told by both sides and the hosts never challenge those lies. Why? It is all about access!! If politicians are going to get called out every time they lie, they would refuse to go on these programs.
Simple as 1, 2, 3.
-
The Blackhawks are making changes....someone was outraged and I am thrilled that they are responding to the outrage. Now, if they can only end the racist logo there will be peace in the world.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nhl/story/_/id/11350487/chicago-blackhawks-nix-stripper-online-petition-launched
-
The Blackhawks are making changes....someone was outraged and I am thrilled that they are responding to the outrage. Now, if they can only end the racist logo there will be peace in the world.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nhl/story/_/id/11350487/chicago-blackhawks-nix-stripper-online-petition-launched
900 people out of ? were "outraged"? i guess everyone is going to have to sit down, shut up and watch in complete silence. that way no one can get "outraged". well, wait a second, guys hitting a puck-that seems kind of violent-yes i should have used teal. i'm outraged at the "outrage" this is really getting/has gotten ridiculous, I have a toothache
-
For Cheeks
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chinews-ditka-blames-politically-co-20140819-embeddedvideo.html
-
Thanks Doctor, here's another one
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24668601/mike-ditka-debate-over-redskins-name-so-stupid-its-appalling
God Bless Ditka....calling it like it is
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/strangecargo-prod/product/grids/lightbox/1148-1317251698.jpg?1317251698)
-
If Ditka is on your side of an argument, your argument is wrong by default.
-
Yeah, there was nothing redeeming about Ditka's rant. Nothing.
-
Yeah, there was nothing redeeming about Ditka's rant. Nothing.
There may not be a more ironic post in the history of this post, considering your avatar. ;D Offensive...terrify offensive
-
Today's Forbes ratings out, Redskins increased value by 41% and are third, valued now at $2.4billion. Damn, that name is killing that value.
-
There may not be a more ironic post in the history of this post, considering your avatar. ;D Offensive...terrify offensive
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dlKazNXq21I/UrIQU5D_MlI/AAAAAAAABQg/sQ_narFbE7U/s1600/2.gif)
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dlKazNXq21I/UrIQU5D_MlI/AAAAAAAABQg/sQ_narFbE7U/s1600/2.gif)
I know exactly where it's from, one of the best SNL sketches ever. Yet, there will be some (always someone) that is outraged or finds it, not "redeeming"
-
Somewhat related...Interesting history on UNLV's mascot.
http://m.lvsun.com/news/2008/dec/23/why-are-unlv-sports-teams-represented-confederate-/
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus
-
I know exactly where it's from, one of the best SNL sketches ever. Yet, there will be some (always someone) that is outraged or finds it, not "redeeming"
Your non sequiturs are becoming almost predictable.
We aren't talking about an SNL skit. We are talking about a racist NFL nickname.
Ditka's rant made almost no sense. His primary argument was that it should be this way because its always been this way. And then he tried to politicize it, turning it into a liberal vs. conservative thing, which I'm not sure it is. To say that because Vince Lombardi didn't have a problem with it, at a time when African Americans weren't allowed to eat at the same lunch counters as whites, is just dumb. Lombardi lived in a different time and there were obviously different prevailing thoughts about ethnic minorities, which we now recognize as soundly racist.
Its time for Ditka to get his head checked. I have a hard time distinguishing the point he is even trying to make when I hear him on Chicago sports radio stations.
-
Your non sequiturs are becoming almost predictable.
We aren't talking about an SNL skit. We are talking about a racist NFL nickname.
Ditka's rant made almost no sense. His primary argument was that it should be this way because its always been this way. And then he tried to politicize it, turning it into a liberal vs. conservative thing, which I'm not sure it is. To say that because Vince Lombardi didn't have a problem with it, at a time when African Americans weren't allowed to eat at the same lunch counters as whites, is just dumb. Lombardi lived in a different time and there were obviously different prevailing thoughts about ethnic minorities, which we now recognize as soundly racist.
Its time for Ditka to get his head checked. I have a hard time distinguishing the point he is even trying to make when I hear him on Chicago sports radio stations.
Ditka is a sad, pathetic dinosaur who also is almost unintelligible. Quoting him to make a point is even worse than quoting Bleacher Report!
-
Your non sequiturs are becoming almost predictable.
We aren't talking about an SNL skit. We are talking about a racist NFL nickname.
Ditka's rant made almost no sense. His primary argument was that it should be this way because its always been this way. And then he tried to politicize it, turning it into a liberal vs. conservative thing, which I'm not sure it is. To say that because Vince Lombardi didn't have a problem with it, at a time when African Americans weren't allowed to eat at the same lunch counters as whites, is just dumb. Lombardi lived in a different time and there were obviously different prevailing thoughts about ethnic minorities, which we now recognize as soundly racist.
Its time for Ditka to get his head checked. I have a hard time distinguishing the point he is even trying to make when I hear him on Chicago sports radio stations.
We are talking about a nickname that SOME people find racist, most people do not. Just because you want it to be racist, doesn't make it so.
The reason he brought up Lombardi is because he was considered a progressive coach with African American players, gay players, etc, yet he went and coached for the Washington Redskins. That's why he brought him up.
Someone is always outraged by something in this country, it's a cottage industry. Someone would be outraged at Schmidt's Gay. Not a non sequiter, an example of the never ending outrage about anything and everything.
Finally, this most stupid example that people use "you wouldn't call someone Redskin to their face", which was trumpeted again by Morrisey in the Sun Times yesterday. His example, if a Native American dropped his had on the street you wouldn't say "Redskin you dropped your hat". He's right, you wouldn't. Just as if an Asian American or Hispanic American or African American or Israeli, or guy from Canada that isn't American or Russian Orthodox Jew or Egyptian poker player....doesn't matter....you would say the same thing..."sir, you dropped your hat". The example is so incredibly dumb. Would you say to a Notre Dame fan wearing a Notre Dame shirt that dropped his hat, "hey Irish fighter...you dropped your hat?" Of course not. It's beyond stupid.
-
Ditka is a sad, pathetic dinosaur who also is almost unintelligible. Quoting him to make a point is even worse than quoting Bleacher Report!
Clearly you have something against old people. You must be a Gerontophobic! Someone is outraged
-
We are talking about a nickname that SOME people find racist
Correct. The SOME people who can read a dictionary and comprehend a declarative sentence.
-
Someone please notify these men and women, clearly they are dumb, stupid, ignorant, etc because they don't realize they are racist about the nickname. Oh, each of these men and women are Native American....plenty more where these came from. Hopefully someone can get out there to reeducate and show them how dumb they are.
https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4#t=37
https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ
https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg
https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc
https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U
-
**Chico's defends a racist nickname
**He claims people are too sensitive
**Continues to be the most over-sensitive person on Scoop
**Yet constantly cries "HYPOCRISY!!!"
Lather. Rise. Repeat.
-
Someone please notify these men and women, clearly they are dumb, stupid, ignorant, etc because they don't realize they are racist about the nickname. Oh, each of these men and women are Native American....plenty more where these came from. Hopefully someone can get out there to reeducate and show them how dumb they are.
https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4#t=37
https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ
https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg
https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc
https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U
Let's see ...
Some black people use the n-word when talking to each other and about each other. It also is extremely popular among rappers and other pop-culture figures. It was used freely in Huck Finn.
Ipso fatso, it would be acceptable - wait, not just acceptable, but good - for the next NFL team to be named the Los Angeles Ni@#$%^.
Because, you know, lots of blacks actually like the reference!
Logic, Chicos style.
-
I am curious. I flew as a member of the world famous Fighting Samurai (Tactical Call Sign Shogun) out of Misawa AB. Is the Squadron logo offensive to people?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyW4OUlxckX3IHQvqL6v9Ijy1zIbVSJPbAQtXxhNfIX8jtV-PTkw)
-
I am curious. I flew as a member of the world famous Fighting Samurai (Tactical Call Sign Shogun) out of Misawa AB. Is the Squadron logo offensive to people?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyW4OUlxckX3IHQvqL6v9Ijy1zIbVSJPbAQtXxhNfIX8jtV-PTkw)
To someone, somewhere....of course. The mere fact that you are an American is offensive to someone, somewhere. Your race, skin color, etc, is offensive to someone, somewhere. It is what it is.
Welcome to planet outrage.
-
I am curious. I flew as a member of the world famous Fighting Samurai (Tactical Call Sign Shogun) out of Misawa AB. Is the Squadron logo offensive to people?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyW4OUlxckX3IHQvqL6v9Ijy1zIbVSJPbAQtXxhNfIX8jtV-PTkw)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Its impossible for me to say as a white person. Which is exactly the point Chicos doesn't understand. I can't put myself in the place of a Japanese-American.
FWIW, I don't think every single depiction of an ethnic minority is automatically offensive. Its a case by case thing. And it depends on the minority you are portraying.
Is there a history of genocide or oppression of that minority? Is it being imposed by someone outside of that ethnic group, perhaps a member of another group that historically oppressed this minority? These kinds of specifics can change the equation.
-
Correct. The SOME people who can read a dictionary and comprehend a declarative sentence.
Yup, those Native Americans that support the name apparently are too stupid to read or comprehend....that's the conclusion I take from your answer. They aren't enlightened as you are, or they are capable of understanding multiple definitions (which you aren't). Ever look at the definition of Redskin over time and how it has changed in the dictionary? Interesting. Ever wonder about the makeup of who decides definitions of words or the political angle involved? Some great articles on that process, but as the enlightened one I'm sure you already knew that.
Now, if you wouldn't mind donating some money to Native American causes to help educate the dumb ones that you feel don't agree with your sensibilities, that would be great. You called them dumb and incapable of comprehension....sounds racist to me.
-
Let's see ...
Some black people use the n-word when talking to each other and about each other. It also is extremely popular among rappers and other pop-culture figures. It was used freely in Huck Finn.
Ipso fatso, it would be acceptable - wait, not just acceptable, but good - for the next NFL team to be named the Los Angeles Ni@#$%^.
Because, you know, lots of blacks actually like the reference!
Logic, Chicos style.
Apparently you didn't play one video, or you would be ashamed at how stupid your analogy is. Try again as your comparison is shot down directly. Really poor try, piss poor....UW Osh Kosh level.
-
408820286]
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Its impossible for me to say as a white person. Which is exactly the point Chicos doesn't understand. I can't put myself in the place of a Japanese-American.[/u]
FWIW, I don't think every single depiction of an ethnic minority is automatically offensive. Its a case by case thing. And it depends on the minority you are portraying.
Is there a history of genocide or oppression of that minority? Is it being imposed by someone outside of that ethnic group, perhaps a member of another group that historically oppressed this minority? These kinds of specifics can change the equation.
Which is why I have posted videos of people that ARE Native American, so you can't use that BS argument. Exactly the point YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. I could post the numerous letters to the Washington Post from native Americans, polls, videos, etc. What you really mean to say is that it doesn't conform to what YOU think it should be, and the opinions of only Native Americans that agree with YOUR opinion matters, not the opinions of any Native Americans that disagree.
-
Gary Clark, you are apparently dumb and incapable of comprehension. You're also a racist apparently, because of your views below
(http://vshfm.com/images/hof_induct/clark.jpg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/14/gary-clark-says-if-native-americans-cared-about-the-redskins-name-they-would-march-on-washington/
“I know about equal rights,” Clark said. “I’m all about equal rights. So quite honestly, I wanted to go hear it from the horse’s mouth. So I went directly to the Native American Indians and I directly asked them, ‘the word Redskin, is it offensive to you, am I being disrespectful of you in in any way?’ And they were like no. Not at all. I said ‘What does the word mean to you?’ And it’s the same thing it meant to me….
“They said it means character, a resilient people, a respected people who are a brotherhood of people, who mostly were a warrior [people]. We will not back down from any cause that we believe in. And think about it. That’s what it means. They don’t back away from anything that comes at them, no matter what. The Minnesota Vikings — Vikings are no longer here. Native American Indians are still here. They did not go away. They did not back down from anybody. And that’s to me what the word meant.
“So when people say it’s the N-word, it’s not. It’s not even close. You haven’t heard from nobody, one person, get upset by calling somebody a Redskin. Who?”
-
Which is why I have posted videos of people that ARE Native American, so you can't use that BS argument. Exactly the point YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. I could post the numerous letters to the Washington Post from native Americans, polls, videos, etc. What you really mean to say is that it doesn't conform to what YOU think it should be, and the opinions of only Native Americans that agree with YOUR opinion matters, not the opinions of any Native Americans that disagree.
Not quite. Plenty of Native Americans think it is offensive. Whether its the majority or not, really doesn't matter to me.
If one Native American thinks its offensive, its probably worth changing.
What white people think, including myself and you, really doesn't matter.
-
Yup, those Native Americans that support the name apparently are too stupid to read or comprehend....that's the conclusion I take from your answer.
Then you take an incorrect conclusion. Lots of Native Americans and people of all other races are unaware that "redskin" is by definition a racial slur. They're not stupid, just uninformed. The people like you, who know that it's by definition a racial slur but support it anyway are the stupid ones. Pretty simple, no?
-
The dumb, ignorant and those not able to comprehend.....so many souls to cleanse and teach
“I am Cherokee from Oklahoma. I became a Redskins fan when I was 8 years old in 1982 when I first saw the logo and team colors. The name fills me with pride and I'm very proud to be a fan. Let's win the NFC EAST! HTTR!!!
”, Billy Williams
“Proud Chiricahua Apache and loyal Redskins fan for over 30 years. Spirit of the Warrior Fight for Old DC! Ahiyi’e (thank you) ” , Mark OneWolf Yancey
"I'm a proud Lumbee Native American out of North Carolina.. I have been a Redskins fan since I was born in 1970 I inherited from my grandfather also a proud Lumbee Native American.. HAIL TO THE REDSKINS ALWAYS AND FOREVER”, Tony Little Bear Chavis
“I'm apart of the Eastern Band of Cherokee from North Carolina. I'm from a very proud and strong blood line. I've been a REDSKIN fan my whole life.......HTTR”,Nicholas Kimmons
“My name's is Gmo Garcia IM a PROUD MEMBER OF THE PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE IN SW TUCSON Az BEEN A REDSK1NS FAN SINCE I CAN REMEMBER #HTTR#4LIFE“, Gmo Garcia!
“Lumbee Tribe in North Carolina. Been a Redskins fan all my life and very proud of everything the Redskins Organization represents. HTTR!”, Dean Locklear!
“100% PROUD NAVAJO (DINĚ). My father was the man that introducedme to my team, WASHINGTON REDSKINS!!I do not find our name offensive, it's exactly the OPPOSITE.! Sending from Phoenix, AZ.
“ I am a member of the Zuni, Hopi, and Laguna pueblo tribes. I have been a Redskins fan my entire life and at no time did the name ever bring up negative images of us Native Americans. As a Native American, I feel
there are more pressing issues that concern Native people throughout the United States and those issues need to be addressed, more so than the name of a professional football team! Thank you!”, James Macale
“ I am a descendent of the Navajo tribe from Rio Rancho Northern New Mexico. I love my Redskins and I feel nothing but pride in the name“Redskins”. Grace Padilla
“ I am from Albuquerque New Mexico. I am a full blooded Native filled to the brim of Redskins spirit and devout love for the burgundy and gold. I am one half Navajo, one quarter Acoma and one quarter Laguna Pueblos.
I've been a die hard fan for over forty years and I will be til the good Lord calls for me. Love our emblem!! Very loud and proud....not offended one bit! HTTR4LIFE” , Sonya Reed Marion
“I'm Maidu and Pit river NdN,from northern Cali tribes! Been a fan for 32years and counting. Native Pride and a Redskins fan tell I die! HTTR Nation!!”, Kenneth Trejo
“I am a descendant from the Powhatans of Virginia. I am a life long Redskins fan and am very proud the team bears this name. Just bc a small margin people have used it in a negative way does not make it a slur. The Senate exploiting the NA community for votes is disgusting.”, Robert “Rocky” Manfreda
“ Cherokee/Blackfoot here! Me, my dad, my grandfather, and my family members are die hard Redskin fans! It's not just a name, it's a family tradition! HTTR4LIFE!!” , Tammy Joyner
“ I'm Cherokee from Fredericksburg, VA. The Washington Redskins was coincidently was established the same year my dear departed mother was born and I grow up watching The Washington Redskins with my now
departed lovely Aunt, and that's been over thirty yrs ago. This could get longer but, cut to the chase, why try and fix something that ain't broke. I'm proud that the team embodies the name, wear it well. HTTR.”, Cathy Lewis
“I'm Yaqui and been a die hard loyal Redskins fan since 2004. always found pride in the name and logo. HTTR” ,Joe Torres
“My name is Jamie Burdette a San Carlos Apache!! I am a Proud Redskins fan and very proud the team bears this name.” , Jamie Burdette
“I'm a Navajo from Farmington, New Mexico. Me, my, wife and my 3 kids are fans of the proud and mighty Washington Redskins. We support and stand behind this team. HTRR4LIFE.”, Jeff Charley
“Aaron Henderson here, proud member of the Navajo Nation from Farmington New Mexico giving a BIG shout out of Much Love and Respect to our Beloved Washington Redskins.. HAIL TO THEREDSKINS!!”, Aaron Henderson
“ June Lujan from Taos Pueblo, NM. Proud as heck to be amongst ALL MY REDSKINS family. HTTR#4LIFE..My aunt (long past) always enjoyed all our "skins" games. Continuing on for as long as I can.”, June Lujan
“Sioux in my mothers side of family but from Washington State originally then moved to VA. A Redskin fan as long as I can remember. Never in my lifetime have I heard of the Redskin name used as a racial slur. Don't
make something out of it that it is not.”, Jeff Horner
“ Monacan in Virginia very proud of the redskin name.” Karla Plogger
“ was born a Redskins fan ...my tribe is my mothers side ..Powhatan” ,Nancy Riesebleter
“ my tribe Chickasaw......#nonamechange“, Alvin Bruce
“ My husband is Sioux and Lumbee. We are Redskin fans. My daddy passed it to me and I passed it to my son. Proud of the Redskin name!!HTTR!!” , Teresa Smith Locklear
“ I'm Chippewa, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, MI. As a proud native, I fully support this team and the use of the name. I am not offended by its use. On the contrary, I feel its fosters pride. Our heritage is rich, why hide it?
”,Amber Vegas VA Beach, VA
“I am not a Native American but kudos to those that support the Redskins. The name has always meant to me just what this letter says - pride and unity.” Lisa Roscoe
“ Mitch Vest born and raised on the Ft Yuma Indian reservation CA. I am enrolled Maricopa of the Salt River reservation. I support the Redskins100%.”, Mitch Vest
“ I am from southern Maryland and I am part Chickahominy. I support the Washington Redskins and everything they stand for! Never once growing up did I ever hear of the name Redskins as offensive! It is pride, honor
and tradition! Thank you for giving back and stand strong! HTTR!!!”,Michael Howison
“ I am a proud member of the Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina. I am a proud Washington Redskins fan. A name change will make me an NFL football fan no longer. I am a Skins fan because of the name and the logo.
HTTR ” Yates Snow Wolf Locklear
“ My name is Sue Johnson. I have been a REDSKIN fan for 60 years and a die hard fan for 50 years. Long story short, I am from a small north Louisiana town where football was king and was introduced to the game
early in my life. My only football claim to fame is John David Crow. I found out at a very early age that I have Cherokee ancestry. Well, when you are 8 years old, already are beginning to love football and find out there is this team that plays on television on Sunday and the name is REDSKINS,well, it just meshed. I have never wavered. Lived in the Dallas, Texas area for 25 years, so I have seen my REDSKINS play many, many times at the old Texas Stadium and once at Jerry World. I love my REDSKINS dearly and support them with every ounce of my being. I even have the logo tattooed right over my heart. They have been the REDSKINS since 1932. HAIL TO THE REDSKINS FOREVER!” Sue Riggs Johnson
“ I'm a proud native of sioux/navajo. I'm proud to have a native head as a logo and to be call a redskin. All these other natives trying to remove it are cowboy fans. That's all. Even elders here on Navajo nation are proud of it”, Jonathan Tso
“My name is Christina Palomino I'm of the Yaqui and Apache Nations. I have been a loud and proud Redskins fan for over 30 years ! My family and I have never felt it to be a racial slur, on the contrary we say it with pride. I support and will always stand by my team HTTR4LIFE” ,Christina Palomino
“My name is Janine Vandenberg I am 100% Native American from the Tsimshian Nation , I support the Redskins name, family, nation all that it is and stands for unity. I know a lot of the Natives to whom are fighting the name have real low self esteem and are victims of Hailbritter, Harjo, and the rest of the activists. If only they could get access to some sort of trauma therapy or PTSD counseling they could understand they do not need ti deal with people such as Hatjo or Halbritter to have a better life,
HTTR FOREVER,” Janine LadyofRedskins Vandenberg
“ 'm Northern Cheyenne from Montana I have been a Redskins fan for thirty years I have always thought of the name to be of honor and strength. .The high school I went too had almost same logo so yeah a
huge fan REDSKINS FAN FOREVER. ..Jerry Thex
“ I am Diné from the Navajo Nation & I support the "Washington Redskins" name 100%. I'm not offended by it. I have always been a fan will continue to stand strong behind our team!!#HTTR#keepthename” Yolanda Yazzie
“ Cherokee nation here I was born a Redskins fan and will be until I die. Proud to be a Redskin HTTR4LIFE
” Jenny Toufas
“ Washoe Paiute and Chippewa. It's freaking fantastic having a NFL football team that allows us to show native pride. HTTR for life”, Brandi Sargento Jingle Dress Dancer
“ Im Sioux/Mohawk and ive been a Redskins fan since I was 8 years old and at this time I learned that I have Indian blood in my veins! Native Pride and Redskins Pride” Timothy Ovard
“ Hello. My name is Marlinda Joe. 100% Navajo and a Proud Washington Redskins Fan. I support the name now and always. And do not have a problem nor am I offended by the name. HTTR" , Marlinda Joe
“Quechan live in Dallas passed down from my PopPop been a fan since I was little. HTTR”, Krystal Payne
-
You dumb idiots.......how dare you say it is not an issue for us and that it is insulting that others tell us how to think. CLEARLY YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND, you're not part of the "some" like the great washed are.
https://www.youtube.com/v/40SFqadRTQ0#t=13
-
Apparently you didn't play one video, or you would be ashamed at how stupid your analogy is. Try again as your comparison is shot down directly. Really poor try, piss poor....UW Osh Kosh level.
Oh ... ouch ... this would wound me deeply if I gave a rat's ass about what you think.
-
"My Nevada Indians"
http://blogs.rgj.com/politics/2014/08/28/sen-reid-says-he-has-advice-for-hillary-clinton-but-wont-share-it-with-rgj-reporter/
You just can't make this stuff up....this after he was trying to keep "his wong's straight" last week. Epic.
-
The dumb, ignorant and those not able to comprehend.....so many souls to cleanse and teach
Oh good lord. lol
-
Oh ... ouch ... this would wound me deeply if I gave a rat's ass about what you think.
You care deeply about what I think, because you often respond to my posts. If you cared not, you wouldn't take a precious second of your time to respond. ;)
-
Oh good lord. lol
Go back to some of the original posts, he said only the ignorant, dumb or those that are out of touch would support the name. So if there are a bunch of Native Americans that support the name, as presented in the videos and numerous letters, quotes, etc, than one can only conclude from his majestic wisdom that these Native Americans are dumb, ignorant, etc. They must be saved and taught what is correct. So much irony
-
Go back to some of the original posts, he said only the ignorant, dumb or those that are out of touch would support the name. So if there are a bunch of Native Americans that support the name, as presented in the videos and numerous letters, quotes, etc, than one can only conclude from his majestic wisdom that these Native Americans are dumb, ignorant, etc. They must be saved and taught what is correct. So much irony
If a rich white dude owned a team called the Washington N-words, and some African-Americans were ok with it, would that make it any less racist?
-
If a rich white dude owned a team called the Washington N-words, and some African-Americans were ok with it, would that make it any less racist?
Yes. Social acceptance makes things more socially acceptable.
-
If one Native American thinks its offensive, its probably worth changing.
What white people think, including myself and you, really doesn't matter.
I am from Ireland. I am one person. I think a mascot of a midget, bearded and drunk midget that always wants to fight is beyond offensive. Where do I sign up to change that?
-
I am from Ireland. I am one person. I think a mascot of a midget, bearded and drunk midget that always wants to fight is beyond offensive. Where do I sign up to change that?
Go eat some potatoes!!
;D
-
If a rich white dude owned a team called the Washington N-words, and some African-Americans were ok with it, would that make it any less racist?
Ridiculous comparison. The N word throughout history has had a negative connotation since the very first time it was uttered. Not the case with Redskin, not close. In fact, many Native Americans believe it a term of honor.
Senior Linquist Smithsonian Institute..... http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
You're comparing apples to volkswagons.
-
I am from Ireland. I am one person. I think a mascot of a midget, bearded and drunk midget that always wants to fight is beyond offensive. Where do I sign up to change that?
That's not how the game works. You see, you are white and therefore you are unable to feel offended. It is impossible, or so the great washed will tell you. No seriously, you have NO RIGHT to be offended. Furthermore, ONLY you and your race can be the offendees, not any other race (just ask Michael Eric Dyson or a whole host of others with that distorted mindset). You have no "history" of persecution, so go to the back of the bus (yup, ironic) with your complaint.
Now, if you want to fast track this, just get a bunch of libs to wet themselves a few times to get some publicity, and you might move up a bit. I would suggest taking the angle of maybe finding some obscure historical reference (you can even make a few up if you wish...that's been done) where it will allow your outrage to gain some strength. Then, work in an anecdote or two on how the name is preventing you from achieving in life, that you are unable to overcome this nickname (clearly, the foresaken nicknames elsewhere are keeping peeps down) and the oppression must stop....."oppression", "execution", "murder", "racist"....a few code words you'll want to work in to get folks to notice. You might have a chance, but your biggest problem is your pale face.
-
That's not how the game works. You see, you are white and therefore you are unable to feel offended. It is impossible, or so the great washed will tell you. No seriously, you have NO RIGHT to be offended. Furthermore, ONLY you and your race can be the offendees, not any other race (just ask Michael Eric Dyson or a whole host of others with that distorted mindset). You have no "history" of persecution, so go to the back of the bus (yup, ironic) with your complaint.
Now, if you want to fast track this, just get a bunch of libs to wet themselves a few times to get some publicity, and you might move up a bit. I would suggest taking the angle of maybe finding some obscure historical reference (you can even make a few up if you wish...that's been done) where it will allow your outrage to gain some strength. Then, work in an anecdote or two on how the name is preventing you from achieving in life, that you are unable to overcome this nickname (clearly, the foresaken nicknames elsewhere are keeping peeps down) and the oppression must stop....."oppression", "execution", "murder", "racist"....a few code words you'll want to work in to get folks to notice. You might have a chance, but your biggest problem is your pale face.
You mad bro?
-
Wow!!
Someone never got to hang out with the cool kids.
-
If one Native American thinks its offensive, its probably worth changing.
I'm pretty offended by Tulsa and Miami for glorifying hurricanes because some of my relatives died in Hurricane Camille. How do I get those changed?
Or does the one person standard apply only to groups of your choosing?
-
According to the surveys that the Redskins themselves provided to the Patent Office, it was 30%. 30% of Native Americans found the name offensive.
30% is significant.
Seriously, a sports team's nickname that offends 30% of the population it is supposed to honor. (According to its owner.)
-
According to the surveys that the Redskins themselves provided to the Patent Office, it was 30%. 30% of Native Americans found the name offensive.
30% is significant.
Seriously, a sports team's nickname that offends 30% of the population it is supposed to honor. (According to its owner.)
So 70% weren't offended?
Sounds like the Redskins are doing better among Native Americans than MU is doing among its own fans....
-
So 70% weren't offended?
Weren't offended or simply didn't care.
-
I'm pretty offended by Tulsa and Miami for glorifying hurricanes because some of my relatives died in Hurricane Camille. How do I get those changed?
Or does the one person standard apply only to groups of your choosing?
I have yet to see anyone seriously assert they have been offended by this. If you are, I'd encourage you to take it up with the respective schools.
-
I'm just curious, why do you think it is that so many Native Americans find honor with the name? Get tattooed with the name, buy merchandise, etc? To the point of naming some of their own high school mascots as Redskins.
I guess I missed where a high school, even one predominantly African American, decided to have their official name as the N's. Perhaps it has happened and someone can point it out.
But back to the point, how come so many of these people have it so wrong? Why are they so dumb, so ignorant, so stupid, so out of touch? Do you think a few decades of reeducation training will do the trick?
-
http://collegespun.com/acc/florida-state/photo-oklahoma-state-fans-have-an-extremely-tasteless-trail-of-tears-banner-for-todays-game
-
So 70% weren't offended?
Sounds like the Redskins are doing better among Native Americans than MU is doing among its own fans....
If it was 29%, then it was golden....but 30% is the magical number. Rest assured, if the polls said 15%, that would be the number. If it was 10%...that would be the number.
It's a moving target, and the number becomes whatever the number is.
I'm hoping someone can answer for me why these Native Americans that support the name support it as they do? Why haven't then been enlightened and shown the way?
-
If it was 29%, then it was golden....but 30% is the magical number. Rest assured, if the polls said 15%, that would be the number. If it was 10%...that would be the number.
No one said that Chicos. Seriously you are the king of the strawman argument.
-
This gets more interesting with the new stadium Snyder wants to build. He wants it at old RFK, but the D.C. city council wants the name changed....because the D.C. city council with folks like their ex crack buying mayor are the virtues of humanity...but I digress.
That leaves Maryland, which their current Governor is a bed wetter and won't let it happen, or Virginia. Now Va's governor is our old friend Terry McAuliffe, who is a pragmatist. Look for the new stadium to be built in Virginia and the name stays.
-
Weren't offended or simply didn't care.
That's still better than MU has done with our name change....
-
Please, please, please, please, please have the Washington Redskins sign Michael Sam.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
The heads exploding from people that are against the nickname while at the same time can't wait for Sam to make a team (regardless if he is good enough or not) would be just too terrific to watch.
"Do I buy a jersey with Sam on the back to support him, or if I am I supporting the Nazis....I'm so conflicted"
Just the sheer spectacle would be great
-
If it was 29%, then it was golden....but 30% is the magical number. Rest assured, if the polls said 15%, that would be the number. If it was 10%...that would be the number.
It's a moving target, and the number becomes whatever the number is.
I'm hoping someone can answer for me why these Native Americans that support the name support it as they do? Why haven't then been enlightened and shown the way?
In matters of right vs wrong I would hope that most MU grads wouldn't hide behind polls - that's where the bigots and the cowards are found.
Instead, I would expect some logic. Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Is the term "redskin" a racial slur? The answer, BY DEFINITION, is yes.
That FACT having been established,
2. Is it a good, bad or indifferent idea to use racial slurs as nicknames for NFL (or any other) teams?
I conclude bad.
If you want to convince me to the contrary, you'll have to make a substantive argument. That 70% (or 80% or 90%) of the Native Americans polled don't know that "redskin" is a slur or don't care that it is won't win the day.
Words have meaning. It's usually the PC crowd that neglects that. They take neutral or even laudatory ones like Braves or Warriors and stand them on their heads. When you do the exact same thing with an as defined slur like "redskin" you play right into their hands. Think about it.
-
In matters of right vs wrong I would hope that most MU grads wouldn't hide behind polls - that's where the bigots and the cowards are found.
Instead, I would expect some logic. Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Is the term "redskin" a racial slur? The answer, BY DEFINITION, is yes.
That FACT having been established,
2. Is it a good, bad or indifferent idea to use a racial slurs as nicknames for NFL (or any other) teams?
I conclude bad.
If you want to convince me to the contrary, you'll have to make a substantive argument. That 70% (or 80% or 90%) of the Native Americans polled don't know that "redskin" is a slur or don't care that it is won't win the day.
Words have meaning. It's usually the PC crowd that neglects that. They take neutral or even laudatory ones like Braves or Warriors and stand them on their heads. When you do the exact same thing with an as defined slur like "redskin" you play right into their hands. Think about it.
Well said
-
New poll out today
71% say keep the name.
And another poll, this time of Washington Redskins players. 26 say keep the name, 1 said change it, 24 did not answer. 96% support among those that answered.
Still wondering where those updated polls are from Native Americans that are against the name? Keep waiting. As my guy down at Turner said (they own CNN), they didn't like the initial polling they got (translation...it didn't fit the agenda) so you won't see anything for some time.
-
And another poll, this time of Washington Redskins players.
Who cares?
-
New poll out today
71% say keep the name.
And another poll, this time of Washington Redskins players. 26 say keep the name, 1 said change it, 24 did not answer. 96% support among those that answered.
Still wondering where those updated polls are from Native Americans that are against the name? Keep waiting. As my guy down at Turner said (they own CNN), they didn't like the initial polling they got (translation...it didn't fit the agenda) so you won't see anything for some time.
I wonder how the players cut over the weekend would answer that poll? ;D
-
New poll out today
71% say keep the name.
And another poll, this time of Washington Redskins players. 26 say keep the name, 1 said change it, 24 did not answer. 96% support among those that answered.
In other words, 50.9% of Redskins players say they supported the name. 47% did not.
In other news, Chicos is holding out hope that the Redskins will sign Jim Thorpe to prove that his 450 posts on this subject are indeed correct.
-
If you want to run to the polls to determine if the name is kept, fine. Keep the name... for now.
In another 5 years, the polls will likely say something else.
At that point, everybody going to be cool with changing it, right?
-
If you want to run to the polls to determine if the name is kept, fine. Keep the name... for now.
In another 5 years, the polls will likely say something else.
At that point, everybody going to be cool with changing it, right?
Wonder how this poll would go: Should professional sports teams have nicknames that are by definition racial slurs? Other than an enthusiastic yes from the Bail Bondsman I don't think the idea would garner all that much support.
-
Wonder how this poll would go: Should professional sports teams have nicknames that are by definition racial slurs? Other than an enthusiastic yes from the Bail Bondsman I don't think the idea would garner all that much support.
Well, I don't really agree with Chico's viewpoint, but the poll numbers are interesting, and I understand how/why somebody would lean on the polls.
With that said, if we are using polls as the litmus test, we need to be prepared if/when we get a result we may not like.
Cultures/traditions/social norms/language change and evolve.
You can phrase the poll the exact same way in 5 years and get a different answer. If 51% of people are "offended", are the nickname supporters going to be happy to change the name then? I would guess no.
-
Well, I don't really agree with Chico's viewpoint, but the poll numbers are interesting, and I understand how/why somebody would lean on the polls.
With that said, if we are using polls as the litmus test, we need to be prepared if/when we get a result we may not like.
Cultures/traditions/social norms/language change and evolve.
You can phrase the poll the exact same way in 5 years and get a different answer. If 51% of people are "offended", are the nickname supporters going to be happy to change the name then? I would guess no.
I think its also just the nature of the beast that whatever is currently in place is viewed as acceptable. Because it is what is and has always been. So you become socialized to it. Of course Redskins is fine, my dad cheered for them, we grew up with it, its part of Americana, its part of our culture, etc. etc. This makes it hard to actually look at it objectively.
If you take a step back and actually see it for what it is, its pretty obvious how racist the name is.
-
I think its also just the nature of the beast that whatever is currently in place is viewed as acceptable. Because it is what is and has always been. So you become socialized to it. Of course Redskins is fine, my dad cheered for them, we grew up with it, its part of Americana, its part of our culture, etc. etc. This makes it hard to actually look at it objectively.
If you take a step back and actually see it for what it is, its pretty obvious how racist the name is.
I agree with you.
But, like I said, if nickname supporters are going to use the polls as evidence, I think that's ultimately a losing battle. Eventually, more than 50% of the people aren't going to support the name.
-
Jim Thorpe
My favorite Jim Thorpe story involves his meeting with the King of Sweden at the Stockholm Olympics. The US Delegation was briefed extensively on the correct protocol for meeting Swedish Royalty.
After Thorpe won the decathlon the Swedish Monarch insisted on meeting with Thorpe, telling him, "You are the world's greatest athlete!" Thorpe replied, "Hey, thanks, King!"
-
I agree with you.
But, like I said, if nickname supporters are going to use the polls as evidence, I think that's ultimately a losing battle. Eventually, more than 50% of the people aren't going to support the name.
Maybe, but you have no idea if that is the case. Nor the time horizon. Lots of things are predicted, some even based on "science". We're supposed to be out of ice this year, yet cap has grown 41% according to NASA year over year. We were supposed to have terrible hurricane seasons the last 5 years, we've had below normal. We're supposed to have increased global warming, now 19 straight years that isn't the case. Unemployment was supposed to be down below 6% 4 years ago....still not.
All kinds of predictions about the future, what's going to happen, what isn't. No one knows, it is all speculation.
As for the built in incumbancy factor....sure that exists to some extent. However, the idea of change just to change isn't always the best strategy either. I give you the remarks of several Native Americans who said changing the name means we will be all but forgotten and we major issues to deal with that you don't understand. Our education, unemployment, alcoholism, etc, are far greater issues then a stupid nickname, but take away that nickname and we aren't even in the sports pages any longer.
-
Only you can tie global warming and the unemployment rate to polling about a racial slur. But hey, when boxed into a corner, might as well reach for the biggest change of subject imaginable. That's the way you roll
-
Only you can tie global warming and the unemployment rate to polling about a racial slur. But hey, when boxed into a corner, might as well reach for the biggest change of subject imaginable. That's the way you roll
It was to show that predictions aren't reliable, and provided some examples to prove the point. Sorry you can't follow along, but that's been a problem for you in many of these threads....remember, you are the self admitted meathead here.
I can use other predictive examples if you wish, but the ones I used were supposed to be air tight based on "science". I could have used the Broncos SB prediction last year. I could have used Dewey and Truman, or Leahy saying the Atom bomb will never work. Or Olsen saying the world will only need 5 computers.
-
It was to show that predictions aren't reliable, and provided some examples to prove the point. Sorry you can't follow along, but that's been a problem for you in many of these threads....remember, you are a the self admitted meathead here.
I can use other predictive examples if you wish, but the ones I used were supposed to be air tight based on "science". I could have used the Broncos SB prediction last year. I could have used Dewey and Truman, or Leahy saying the Atom bomb will never work. Or Olsen saying the world will only need 5 computers.
Really, if you don't know the difference between science based polls and social based polls, I don't know what to tell you.
Look at polls even 10 years ago regarding such things as gay marriage, marijuana, women's rights, religion etc and compare them to today's polls. The writing is on the wall. The days of the NFL making money off of blatant racism are numbered
-
Maybe, but you have no idea if that is the case.
How much you wanna bet, big boy?
-
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0121/60585_cartoon_main.jpg?208)
(http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Washington-Redskins.jpg)
(http://cdn.hiphopwired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/washington-redskins-name-change-25.png)
(http://www.drewlitton.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Redkinscorrected.gif)
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0121/60845_cartoon_main.jpg?208)
-
Some people are very comfortable with their racial slurs.
But realistically, it's not a "white" thing. If you travel to India, people will talk a lot worse about some of the other ethnic groups there, just as it happens almost everywhere.
Still doesn't make it right though.
-
My sources tell me Snyder is going to change the team's name to ...
Scalping Savages!
It works on so many levels.
Numerous polls have shown that Injuns actually like being called savages because it has such a manly connotation - and that's just the squaws talking!
Says MMA star Dan Hornbuckle, a modern-day savage from the Cherokee tribe: "And how! For many moons, redskins like being called savages. Those who no like it ... me thinkum they stinkum!"
The scalping part, duh, what American wouldn't love being associated with an activity that goes back centuries? It's a heap-big tradition - every bit as fun as other all-American traditions such as slavery and torture! - and that's reason enough to justify any nickname! The Injuns have the powerful NTA (National Tomahawk Association) lobby pouring money into Congress to make sure there never is any meaningful tomahawk-control legislation. So what if a 9-year-old accidentally killed her instructor at a scalping range? That's life; deal with it!
As Pocahontas famously said: "Back off, paleface. You'll have to pry this tomahawk from my cold, dead hands!"
The Scalping Savages. I think Snyder has a winner there!
-
many moons, heap-big, paleface
I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.
Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.
What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.
Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?
I think if we look back at the Anglo characterization of non-Caucasians the Redskin thematic fits squarely in that overall narrative and should only be assessed through that paradigm.
-
I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.
Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.
What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.
Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?
I think if we look back at the Anglo characterization of non-Caucasians the Redskin thematic fits squarely in that overall narrative and should only be assessed through that paradigm.
Oh sure, take my ridiculous post and try turning it into a rational conversation.
Don't respond to keefe, anybody! He speakum with forked tongue and drinkum too much fire water!!
Go Scalping Savages!!!!!
-
Maybe, but you have no idea if that is the case. Nor the time horizon. Lots of things are predicted, some even based on "science". We're supposed to be out of ice this year, yet cap has grown 41% according to NASA year over year. We were supposed to have terrible hurricane seasons the last 5 years, we've had below normal. We're supposed to have increased global warming, now 19 straight years that isn't the case. Unemployment was supposed to be down below 6% 4 years ago....still not.
All kinds of predictions about the future, what's going to happen, what isn't. No one knows, it is all speculation.
As for the built in incumbancy factor....sure that exists to some extent. However, the idea of change just to change isn't always the best strategy either. I give you the remarks of several Native Americans who said changing the name means we will be all but forgotten and we major issues to deal with that you don't understand. Our education, unemployment, alcoholism, etc, are far greater issues then a stupid nickname, but take away that nickname and we aren't even in the sports pages any longer.
You're a little scattered here, so let me just ask you straight out:
In 5 years, if the polls say the 51% of Native Americans, players in the NFL, and general public say they don't like the name, are you cool with making a change? Is there a magic number or threshold that would change your mind on the issue?
You've used the polls and data to support your position, which is fair, but the knife cuts both ways.
-
I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.
Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.
What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.
Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?
I think if we look back at the Anglo characterization of non-Caucasians the Redskin thematic fits squarely in that overall narrative and should only be assessed through that paradigm.
<applause>
That is the "drop the mic and walk away" post of this thread.
-
I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.
Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.
What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.
Careful, Keefe. To Chico, the USA was a much better place back then. If you listen closely, you'll hear him singing along with Archie and Edith on "Those Were The Days".
-
Really, if you don't know the difference between science based polls and social based polls, I don't know what to tell you.
Look at polls even 10 years ago regarding such things as gay marriage, marijuana, women's rights, religion etc and compare them to today's polls. The writing is on the wall. The days of the NFL making money off of blatant racism are numbered
Maybe Chico is right. Maybe people like him will be able to reverse the tides of progress - enact and enforce tough sodomy laws, make marijuana possession a felony, outlaw interracial marriage, return women to second class citizenship, celebrate racial stereotypes and slurs, etc., - but I don't think so. Can't speak for the young people in his life, but the ones I know aren't interested in going there.
-
well the jury speaks-espn poll says 71% says keep the redskins name-so there you have it
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11451964/redskins-poll-most-favor-keeping-name-dissent-growing
-
looks like it's open trolling season chico ?-( :o
-
My sources tell me Snyder is going to change the team's name to ...
Scalping Savages!
It works on so many levels.
Numerous polls have shown that Injuns actually like being called savages because it has such a manly connotation - and that's just the squaws talking!
Says MMA star Dan Hornbuckle, a modern-day savage from the Cherokee tribe: "And how! For many moons, redskins like being called savages. Those who no like it ... me thinkum they stinkum!"
The scalping part, duh, what American wouldn't love being associated with an activity that goes back centuries? It's a heap-big tradition - every bit as fun as other all-American traditions such as slavery and torture! - and that's reason enough to justify any nickname! The Injuns have the powerful NTA (National Tomahawk Association) lobby pouring money into Congress to make sure there never is any meaningful tomahawk-control legislation. So what if a 9-year-old accidentally killed her instructor at a scalping range? That's life; deal with it!
As Pocahontas famously said: "Back off, paleface. You'll have to pry this tomahawk from my cold, dead hands!"
The Scalping Savages. I think Snyder has a winner there!
Tonto sent me a smoke signal approving of this suggestion.
Q
-
Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?
I would argue advertisers and media do this often regardless of who it is. They have no problem poking fun at people and stereotyping, so the imagery does become acceptable. Does Family Guy portray white, middle age dudes in a certain way? How about the Simpsons? Do we portray the female secretary in commercials, tv shows, movies as someone that is horned up and can't wait to get it on with the boss? Guy in a BBQ commercial is some lumpy white dude with a Hawaiian shirt. A commercial about a mop or cleaning supplies 99.9% of the time features a woman, why not a guy doing those chores? Etc, etc.
Totally get your point, but I think "the return" happens a lot, just some people can laugh at this stuff and some people are outraged at the drop of a hat.
Remember the Intel computing ad from about 5 years ago...with the track athletes in the cubes and an office manager. If the office manager was a female or Asian, or the track athletes were kids or something....you get the idea. That was something.
-
Maybe Chico is right. Maybe people like him will be able to reverse the tides of progress - enact and enforce tough sodomy laws, make marijuana possession a felony, outlaw interracial marriage, return women to second class citizenship, celebrate racial stereotypes and slurs, etc., - but I don't think so. Can't speak for the young people in his life, but the ones I know aren't interested in going there.
Ah yes, don't forget Hitler, Nazis and a few others in there. LOL. It's red herring and canard season.
Just so we're clear and you can get the Summer's Eve off your face that you're bathing in again.....
Interracial marriage...never an issue with it
Women as second class citizens....nope
Could care less what two consenting adults do in the bedroom...not gov'ts business
Marijuana.....First of all, it is not always a felony. Second, I just ask for consistency. More and more studies showing the health harms caused by it, be it heart, brain, etc. We can't wait to get rid of tobacco in this country and tax it to such extremes and sue companies to the point of ridiculousness, but we're all fine and dandy of bringing in this drug for new revenues. Why the double standard? Who does one sue down the road when this all goes to hell? The gov't? LOL.
Celebrate racial slurs....who is deciding what is a slur...you? So we get to ignore those that say it is a term of honor....oh that's right, they're dumb, ignorant, stupid, unwashed....I keep forgetting.
So the young people you know don't always agree....well damn, that's good to know, especially with how smart some of the young people are and all. How many things did you believe or support when you were young only to change your tune when you got smarter, wiser, etc? That's the bonus of age and wisdom and experience. That doesn't mean they are wrong, just because they are young, but that doesn't mean they have the keys to the world and "progress" either.
-
You're a little scattered here, so let me just ask you straight out:
In 5 years, if the polls say the 51% of Native Americans, players in the NFL, and general public say they don't like the name, are you cool with making a change? Is there a magic number or threshold that would change your mind on the issue?
You've used the polls and data to support your position, which is fair, but the knife cuts both ways.
Not scattered at all. Predictions made all the time, some are "settled science" and the predictions come out dead wrong. Some are just predictions...I heard we were going to win the Big East last year. Doesn't make the predictions right, that was the point....you have no idea what is going to happen in the future. It's a prediction, nothing more.
62% of Americans believe Abortion is morally wrong....so we should abolish it....right? 58% oppose it in all circumstances. It's the majority, after-all, seems we should get with it and change the law.
See, I can play this game all day if you wish. There will be polls that support positions and those that oppose it. There will be people that despite the polls that will say "I don't care what the polls say, it's a slur". There will be people that will use the polls to back their position (as I have done with the Redskins). No one is denying that happens, it does and will always be the case.
Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before. I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans. Many Native Americans feel the same way. I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars. How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU? A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist. It's relevancy. So if the majority of Native Americans want it gone....ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICANS and not their organizations (i.e. the AMA supported Obamacare but actual doctors are opposed to it....or unions support a certain law or politician but many of their membership doesn't) then I would be much more sympathetic. HOWEVER, it's still a private company and they can do what they want. If the people don't like it, don't buy their stuff, don't go to games, have protests every night.
-
Celebrate racial slurs....who is deciding what is a slur...you?
Well, it could be me, since I most definitely remember "redskin" being used as a racial slur in TV shows and movies, but since you'd never accept that, no...not me. It's those "pesky facts" that decide it. Buy a dictionary, it's in the definition.
-
62% of Americans believe Abortion is morally wrong....so we should abolish it....right? 58% oppose it in all circumstances. It's the majority, after-all, seems we should get with it and change the law.
That is just false: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
How you can leap 37 points from 21% to 58% is beyond me
-
Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before. I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans. Many Native Americans feel the same way. I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars. How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU? A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist. It's relevancy. So if the majority of Native Americans want it gone....ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICANS
that worked so well for the old Sambo's restaurants (used to be over 1000 in the US)
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/06/30/pancakes-and-pickaninnies-the-saga-of-sambo-s-the-racist-restaurant-chain-america-once-loved/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1404164464923.cached.jpg)
-
that worked so well for the old Sambo's restaurants (used to be over 1000 in the US)
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/06/30/pancakes-and-pickaninnies-the-saga-of-sambo-s-the-racist-restaurant-chain-america-once-loved/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1404164464923.cached.jpg)
I remember it well. Sambo's was named after Sam Battistone, Sr. and Newell Bohnett (owner of the New Orleans Jazz at one point). Growing up, many families went there just like one would go to Denny's or IHOP or Norm's. They were all over California as they started in Santa Barabara \ Ventura area. The original is still open in Santa Barbara. http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/
They chose after launch of a few years to associate the brand with the story line of the main character from the book. In the late 1970's, there was outrage around it. The public decided they weren't going to frequent any longer. They went into bankruptcy.
If people don't want the Redskins name, don't buy their tickets, don't watch their games, don't buy their merchandise and the market will take care of itself....just like it did with Sambo's. Thing is, that's not good enough for the "tolerant", well "educated" folks that are so tolerant and smart they'll even tell Native Americans how they should think, which is special.
-
Doesn't matter.
Snyder's going with Scalping Savages anyway!
-
Not scattered at all. Predictions made all the time, some are "settled science" and the predictions come out dead wrong. Some are just predictions...I heard we were going to win the Big East last year. Doesn't make the predictions right, that was the point....you have no idea what is going to happen in the future. It's a prediction, nothing more.
62% of Americans believe Abortion is morally wrong....so we should abolish it....right? 58% oppose it in all circumstances. It's the majority, after-all, seems we should get with it and change the law.
See, I can play this game all day if you wish. There will be polls that support positions and those that oppose it. There will be people that despite the polls that will say "I don't care what the polls say, it's a slur". No one is denying that happens, it does and will always be the case.
Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before. I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans. Many Native Americans feel the same way. I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars. How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU? A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist. It's relevancy. So if the majority of Native Americans want it gone....ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICANS and not their organizations (i.e. the AMA supported Obamacare but actual doctors are opposed to it....or unions support a certain law or politician but many of their membership doesn't) then I would be much more sympathetic. HOWEVER, it's still a private company and they can do what they want. If the people don't like it, don't buy their stuff, don't go to games, have protests every night.
Do the polls you've used in this thread qualify as actual Native Americans? (honest question because I really don't know).
You've used data to support the case that the name should be kept. That's great. Honestly, it's actually pretty compelling to me. I don't agree with the nickname and I agree with Keefe's post, but if the majority of Americans are okay with it, maybe I'm just being an uptight douche. It has happened before.
Here is what I'm getting at:
You've used public opinion and polls to support your position, but I have a feeling that if the public opinion changes, you still won't change your position. Seems fraudulent to use the polls now, but dismiss them later, right?
Are you prepared to accept a name change if/when the public demands it?
-
Careful, Keefe. To Chico, the USA was a much better place back then. If you listen closely, you'll hear him singing along with Archie and Edith on "Those Were The Days".
How much Massengill stock do you own?
-
Do the polls you've used in this thread qualify as actual Native Americans? (honest question because I really don't know).
You've used data to support the case that the name should be kept. That's great. Honestly, it's actually pretty compelling to me. I don't agree with the nickname and I agree with Keefe's post, but if the majority of Americans are okay with it, maybe I'm just being an uptight douche. It has happened before.
Here is what I'm getting at:
You've used public opinion and polls to support your position, but I have a feeling that if the public opinion changes, you still won't change your position. Seems fraudulent to use the polls now, but dismiss them later, right?
Are you prepared to accept a name change if/when the public demands it?
The latest polls are general polls of the general public, not of Native Americans only....is that what you mean?
As I said before, there are TWO issues at hand here, one is related to private business and what a business can do. In my view, you should not force a private business to do anything if they are not acting illegally What they have done is not illegal. If it is as bad as people make it out to be, then let market forces do their work and drum out their business. That's an important part of this that very few people want to tackle. This is a political issue for parts of the gov't, nothing more.
The other is about the nickname itself, which I gave my answer in the last response.
So, when are we changing the abortion laws.....since the public demands it?
-
Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before. I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans. Many Native Americans feel the same way. I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars. How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU? A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist. It's relevancy.
Now here is an argument that makes sense to me. This is one I can get behind. It is a positive argument that explains the benefits of keeping the nickname. Until this point (since the thread was resurrected last week) all of your posts were attacks against other people's arguments. Those are fair game in a debate, but utterly useless without some sort of positive argument ton your own side. Before it seemed like you were arguing just because you hate political correctness. Not a positive argument. Arguing because you are worried that Native Americans will be pushed even farther out of our minds than they already have been? Positive argument.
I happen to agree with you. Having worked for the University of Utah, I know how much pride the Ute Tribe has for the mascot. They would have faded into history without the exposure and financial support created by the mascot. My issue with the redskins is that at least 29% of the honored population is offended by it. It also, as Keefe pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could, glorifies a past culture of racism and ignorance. Finally, while it may provide some sort of exposure for Native Americans, it provides no financial support. The University of Utah uses the Utes name, so they pay them for it. Same for Central Michigan and the Chippewas. I'm unsure with others. Finally, some universities do education with their fans and prevent things like fans bring trail of tears banners or white men showing up in war paint. As far as I know, the Redskins actually promote some of that culture.
If the Redskins changed to a specific tribe, with their blessing, and offered to pay them for their name and kept their fans in check, I would take less issue with it. Depending on the details, I might even full heartedly support it.
There is common ground here. Let's try to find it.
-
The latest polls are general polls of the general public, not of Native Americans only....is that what you mean?
As I said before, there are TWO issues at hand here, one is related to private business and what a business can do. In my view, you should not force a private business to do anything if they are not acting illegally What they have done is not illegal. If it is as bad as people make it out to be, then let market forces do their work and drum out their business. That's an important part of this that very few people want to tackle. This is a political issue for parts of the gov't, nothing more.
The other is about the nickname itself, which I gave my answer in the last response.
So, when are we changing the abortion laws.....since the public demands it?
#1 It's a private business, so I'm fine with them doing what they want, but I'm also fine with people being pissed about it. It's America. The free market will eventually figure it out.
#2 I'm confused because you keep posting poll information, and now you are saying that poll information isn't determining your opinion. Why post the poll info then? It's not applicable is it?
#3 I disagree that the Redskins name is good way of honoring Native Americans, but that's just a simple matter of opinion.
#4 The abortion thing isn't applicable. I have my own opinion on the topic, and it's not determined by what the general public says. However, I also don't quote the polls when I'm asked about the subject (which is never).
#5 It seems like this is a political issue for you, and for me, it's not. It's just about right & wrong, not right & left.
-
#1 It's a private business, so I'm fine with them doing what they want, but I'm also fine with people being pissed about it. It's America. The free market will eventually figure it out.
#2 I'm confused because you keep posting poll information, and now you are saying that poll information isn't determining your opinion. Why post the poll info then? It's not applicable is it?
#3 I disagree that the Redskins name is good way of honoring Native Americans, but that's just a simple matter of opinion.
#4 The abortion thing isn't applicable. I have my own opinion on the topic, and it's not determined by what the general public says. However, I also don't quote the polls when I'm asked about the subject (which is never).
#5 It seems like this is a political issue for you, and for me, it's not. It's just about right & wrong, not right & left.
1.Totally agree - has anyone here suggested that the government order Dan Snyder to change the nickname? I would NEVER want that. Typical Chico straw man.
5. Exactly, but to the wackos, everything is political. On the fringe left, positives (warriors)are somehow demeaning. On the fringe right, racial slurs "honor" the obviously demeaned. Dig in your heels, common sense be damned.
-
If the Redskins changed to a specific tribe, with their blessing, and offered to pay them for their name and kept their fans in check, I would take less issue with it. Depending on the details, I might even full heartedly support it.
That's the most intelligent compromise I have heard suggested yet on the subject. Bravo.
The Powhatan Confederacy actually inhabited the very land Washington, DC now sits on. Unfortunately, the Powhatan people were enslaved by white settlers and then almost completely wiped out in the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, so I don't even know if such an arrangement could be made with what is left of the tribe. The history of the Powhatan people makes the Redskins nickname even more insulting. Collectively, there are about 3,000 members left so maybe some sort of agreement could be cobbled together. If it was a nickname, mascot and logo that was approved by those peoples and granted them a share of revenue for usage of the name I could potentially support such a move.
-
That's the most intelligent compromise I have heard suggested yet on the subject. Bravo.
The Powhatan Confederacy actually inhabited the very land Washington, DC now sits on. Unfortunately, the Powhatan people were enslaved by white settlers and then almost completely wiped out in the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, so I don't even know if such an arrangement could be made with what is left of the tribe. The history of the Powhatan people makes the Redskins nickname even more insulting. Collectively, there are about 3,000 members left so maybe some sort of agreement could be cobbled together. If it was a nickname, mascot and logo that was approved by those peoples and granted them a share of revenue for usage of the name I could potentially support such a move.
That's an interesting take on it.
You want to use our likeness and name? Pay us a licensing fee.
Not bad.
-
That's the most intelligent compromise I have heard suggested yet on the subject. Bravo.
The Powhatan Confederacy actually inhabited the very land Washington, DC now sits on. Unfortunately, the Powhatan people were enslaved by white settlers and then almost completely wiped out in the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, so I don't even know if such an arrangement could be made with what is left of the tribe. The history of the Powhatan people makes the Redskins nickname even more insulting. Collectively, there are about 3,000 members left so maybe some sort of agreement could be cobbled together. If it was a nickname, mascot and logo that was approved by those peoples and granted them a share of revenue for usage of the name I could potentially support such a move.
I like this a lot. I went to a high school in Wisconsin whose nickname is the "Indians". The town was named after a Potowatomi Indian chief who lived in the area, so it makes sense as part of the town's history. The thing that really bothers me is that all the imagery all over the school depicts Native Americans in ornate, Sioux-type headdresses and/or on horses, and involving teepees and buffalo. The Potawatomi did not wear headdresses, lived in semi-permanent wigwams and longhouses, did not hunt buffalo (at least, not as a primary food source, like the plains cultures) and did not widely adopt horses until well into the 1800s. Of course, the headdress/horses/teepees imagery was made popular in novels and movies about the wild west, and quickly became the stand in imagery for all Native Americans, as if they were one ethnic group, instead of a hugely diverse group with different ways of life.
That is what bothers me the most about the argument that these nicknames and mascots honor Native Americans. Most of the time, all of the imagery surrounding the team reflect some watered-down relic of a stereotype from 1880s dime novels. That isn't paying homage to anything other than our culture's misconceptions about the diversity of Native American life.
If the mascot, nickname and imagery around my old high school actually attempted to pay homage to the local tribes, I might be okay with it. Same with the Redskins.
-
That's an interesting take on it.
You want to use our likeness and name? Pay us a licensing fee.
Not bad.
To complete this thought, everyone with Irish ancestry should also get paid by Notre Dame? Any mascot that is male gendered, do all males get a licensing fee? Do the Cowboys have to pay ranchers? Do the Texas Rangers have to pay...well, the Texas Rangers law enforcement?
-
To complete this thought, everyone with Irish ancestry should also get paid by Notre Dame? Any mascot that is male gendered, do all males get a licensing fee? Do the Cowboys have to pay ranchers? Do the Texas Rangers have to pay...well, the Texas Rangers law enforcement?
The Irish argument makes no sense. The Fighting Irish is the mascot of a school which has traditionally been an Irish serving institution. They already "own" the Irish imagery. The Utah Utes paying the Ute tribe makes sense because it is a bunch of white people paying for an image they don't already "own." Same thing for the male mascots. The university serves and is own and operated by men, so they already "own" the image of a male mascot. The Cowboys and Rangers are reducto ad absurdum.
I don't understand. You just said that the reason you are so passionate about keeping the Redskins name (and I assume other native american themed names) is because you are afraid the native american culture will disappear. Wouldn't requiring teams to help financially support the tribe they are borrowing from help your cause? I would have thought you would be for this.
-
The Irish argument makes no sense. The Fighting Irish is the mascot of a school which has traditionally been an Irish serving institution. They already "own" the Irish imagery. The Utah Utes paying the Ute tribe makes sense because it is a bunch of white people paying for an image they don't already "own." Same thing for the male mascots. The university serves and is own and operated by men, so they already "own" the image of a male mascot. The Cowboys and Rangers are reducto ad absurdum.
I don't understand. You just said that the reason you are so passionate about keeping the Redskins name (and I assume other native american themed names) is because you are afraid the native american culture will disappear. Wouldn't requiring teams to help financially support the tribe they are borrowing from help your cause? I would have thought you would be for this.
I said that is ONE of the reasons, not the only reason.
Since when does Notre Dame "own" the Irish imagery? That's why I asked my question. If we're going to require licensing fees to be paid out to use imagery, why can't Irish people demand a cut? Or anything else for that matter?
What you find absurd, many others won't. Some of the same Native Americans wanting Redskins to go away also want Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc removed as well. Some call that absurd, some of those folks don't. Doesn't take much for a small group of people to be outraged.
Back to the question, if we're going to pay for usage, why wouldn't those folks have the same claim? I have no doubt in my mind there are more than a bunch of lawyers that would try to walk that line.
-
New poll out today
71% say keep the name.
And another poll, this time of Washington Redskins players. 26 say keep the name, 1 said change it, 24 did not answer. 96% support among those that answered.
Still wondering where those updated polls are from Native Americans that are against the name? Keep waiting. As my guy down at Turner said (they own CNN), they didn't like the initial polling they got (translation...it didn't fit the agenda) so you won't see anything for some time.
Interesting that you should cite this 71% approval poll to further your case.
In the most recent national survey on the subject, 71% of all Americans polled say every woman should receive access to free (in other words, taxpayer-subsidized) contraception.
So given such incredibly strong support, it's nice to know that you must believe wholeheartedly that should be the law of the land.
-
You just said that the reason you are so passionate about keeping the Redskins name (and I assume other native american themed names) is because you are afraid the native american culture will disappear.
The Native American culture will disappear if a pro football team stops using a racial slur as a nickname? Could be the dumbest thing ever said on Scoop.
-
To complete this thought, everyone with Irish ancestry should also get paid by Notre Dame? Any mascot that is male gendered, do all males get a licensing fee? Do the Cowboys have to pay ranchers? Do the Texas Rangers have to pay...well, the Texas Rangers law enforcement?
Righhhht, but the slippery slope works both ways.
I can't sell sweatshirts with a big blue star on them outside of JerryWorld without a licensing agreement.
Did Jerry invent the blue star? How about the word "Cowboys"? Clearly there were cowboys in Dallas before there were "The Cowboys". Why do I need a licensing agreement to sell stuff that says "Dallas Cowboys" on it?
Now, logistically, licensing Native American tribes/names is a HUGE logistical challenge, no doubt. It might not even be realistic, but I don't think it should just be dismissed out of hand. It's an interesting concept that never really occurred to me.
If the Native American imagery is so important to a sports team (a private organization), they should be willing to pay a licensing fee. If the Tribes are really offended by it, then they can turn down the agreement.
-
Now, logistically, licensing Native American tribes/names is a HUGE logistical challenge, no doubt. It might not even be realistic, but I don't think it should just be dismissed out of hand. It's an interesting concept that never really occurred to me.
They aren't labeled as "licensing fees" but the University of Utah and Central Michigan both pay their respective tribes for the use of their name. Other schools may do the same thing. I have no idea how much or any of the details, but it can be done.
-
The Native American culture will disappear if a pro football team stops using a racial slur as a nickname? Could be the dumbest thing ever said on Scoop.
I don't know how much good the Redskins do for native american culture. But having talked to members of the Ute nation, the ones I spoke to feel that they would have faded into obscurity without the exposure and funds provided by the universities nickname.
-
I said that is ONE of the reasons, not the only reason.
But it's the only legitimate argument you've made so far. To simply attack those who want to change the mascot does nothing for the "pro-Redskin" side. You've listed countless argument about why you think the other side is stupid, illegitimate, and hypocritical. You've only made one argument for why your side is good. Calling the other side stupid doesn't make your side smart.
Since when does Notre Dame "own" the Irish imagery? That's why I asked my question. If we're going to require licensing fees to be paid out to use imagery, why can't Irish people demand a cut? Or anything else for that matter?
Back to the question, if we're going to pay for usage, why wouldn't those folks have the same claim? I have no doubt in my mind there are more than a bunch of lawyers that would try to walk that line.
Because an Irish university can choose to call itself the Fighting Irish. Just like a native serving institution like UNC Pembroke can call itself the Indians. Or a historically black college could call themselves the blacks. I'm sure you could find many lawyers, I'm just as sure that those lawyers would lose.
What you find absurd, many others won't. Some of the same Native Americans wanting Redskins to go away also want Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc removed as well. Some call that absurd, some of those folks don't. Doesn't take much for a small group of people to be outraged.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? We all draw our own line in the sand at what we think is right. No one is talking about the government forcing the Redskins to change. We are normal every day Americans who find this mascot to be an issue and are voicing our opinions. Right now, the power of public opinion isn't strong enough to convince the Redskins leadership to change. In a few years, maybe it will be. And maybe next they will come for Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc. Same process will happen. When they get to teams like the Utes and Chippewas, I will throw my voice on the other side, because I think they do more good than harm.
-
What you find absurd, many others won't. Some of the same Native Americans wanting Redskins to go away also want Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc removed as well. Some call that absurd, some of those folks don't. Doesn't take much for a small group of people to be outraged.
So what?
We don't need to take action or inaction out of fear of some sort of hypothetical slippery slope.
Black people don't like being called "boy" or "n-word". I don't think the world has stopped spinning because that's not acceptable vernacular anymore.
Not everything is some sort of slippery slope leading to the wussification and liberal take-over of America.
-
Since whites own most professional franchises - let's start changing team names to Pale Faces, Crackers, Honkies, Gringos, Blue-eyed Devils, Milkies, Rednecks, Hillbillies, Trailer Trash, Caspers, Whiteys, Albinos, Klansmen, Lynchers, Slave Beaters, Cops, etc?
Isn't it time to honor whites and the white culture?
-
So what?
We don't need to take action or inaction out of fear of some sort of hypothetical slippery slope.
Black people don't like being called "boy" or "n-word". I don't think the world has stopped spinning because that's not acceptable vernacular anymore.
Not everything is some sort of slippery slope leading to the wussification and liberal take-over of America.
Exactly.
Remember when Casey Martin won the right to use a cart during tournament play. Everybody from Tiger to Jack to Arnold argued that it was a slippery slope and soon others would be demanding the right to use a cart.
Well, it's been something like 15 years since he won the right in court to use a cart. Has any other disabled golfer even sought permission to use a cart in a PGA event?
Everything isn't a slippery slope ... but it always sounds like a great argument for those who are afraid of even the slightest change.
You know what really WAS a slippery slope? Letting Jackie Robinson play Major League Baseball.
-
Exactly.
Remember when Casey Martin won the right to use a cart during tournament play. Everybody from Tiger to Jack to Arnold argued that it was a slippery slope and soon others would be demanding the right to use a cart.
Well, it's been something like 15 years since he won the right in court to use a cart. Has any other disabled golfer even sought permission to use a cart in a PGA event?
Everything isn't a slippery slope ... but it always sounds like a great argument for those who are afraid of even the slightest change.
You know what really WAS a slippery slope? Letting Jackie Robinson play Major League Baseball.
Yep. Doomsday arguments about social issues never come to pass.
We'll be saying the same thing about homosexual marriage in about a decade. No one will be married to their dog like all the doomsayers predicted.
-
Yep. Doomsday arguments about social issues never come to pass.
We'll be saying the same thing about homosexual marriage in about a decade. No one will be married to their dog like all the doomsayers predicted.
What about ducks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8
-
So what?
We don't need to take action or inaction out of fear of some sort of hypothetical slippery slope.
Black people don't like being called "boy" or "n-word". I don't think the world has stopped spinning because that's not acceptable vernacular anymore.
Not everything is some sort of slippery slope leading to the wussification and liberal take-over of America.
So we should ignore the majority of Native Americans that are just fine with the name, believe it IS a place of honor for the minority of Native Americans that don't believe that.
Well, you believe one way and others do not. I'm taking the view of Native Americans that don't want a bunch of guilt ridden white people to decide how they should think, especially when those same white people call them (indirectly or directly) stupid, dumb, uneducated, etc.
To each their own.
-
I don't know how much good the Redskins do for native american culture. But having talked to members of the Ute nation, the ones I spoke to feel that they would have faded into obscurity without the exposure and funds provided by the universities nickname.
Well, comparing a denied racial slur to the actual name of a tribe is really dumb also. Are you actually doing that?
-
The Native American culture will disappear if a pro football team stops using a racial slur as a nickname? Could be the dumbest thing ever said on Scoop.
Yup, there you go again....calling Native Americans dumb, stupid, ignorant.
Here's an article written by four Native Americans, that make the exact argument you just called dumb. You're so WHITETIOUS in your condemnation...it's so sad to see you call these people stupid, but I am not surprised.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/washington-redskins/
"Taking the pride we have in our nicknames and logos is just another step towards that goal of not assimilation but genocide. Removing all references to something is the first step in removing it entirely."
Lenny....always always ready to tell non-whites how they should think and how stupid and dumb they are if they don't agree with his position. How mighty white of you. Well done!
-
Well, comparing a denied racial slur to the actual name of a tribe is really dumb also. Are you actually doing that?
No I'm not. But Chicos made the argument the native american themed mascosts help preserve native american culture. You are the one who narrowed it down to just Redskins. That's why I said it was oversimplified. Redskins doesn't in my opinion but Utes does despite them both falling under the category of native american themed mascots.
-
So we should ignore the majority of Native Americans that are just fine with the name, believe it IS a place of honor for the minority of Native Americans that don't believe that.
Well, you believe one way and others do not. I'm taking the view of Native Americans that don't want a bunch of guilt ridden white people to decide how they should think, especially when those same white people call them (indirectly or directly) stupid, dumb, uneducated, etc.
To each their own.
Try to change the subject, obfuscate and muddy the waters, but it doesn't change this: at the end of the day, anyone who knows that the term "redskin" has a well earned definition as a racial slur doesn't need a poll to oppose it. A simple sense of right and wrong will do. And anyone who knows that well earned definition but still supports it's use can't hide behind polls either.
To each his own? Right.
-
No I'm not. But Chicos made the argument the native american themed mascosts help preserve native american culture. You are the one who narrowed it down to just Redskins. That's why I said it was oversimplified. Redskins doesn't in my opinion but Utes does despite them both falling under the category of native american themed mascots.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks using a racial slur for a nickname preserves Native American culture is absurd.
-
Charlotte Observe joining those who will no longer refer to Washington's NFL team by its racist nickname.
---
Charlotte Observer sports editor Mike Persinger announced Saturday that the Observer will avoid using the name Redskins when referring to Washington, D.C.’s NFL football team. The editorial board doesn’t have much occasion to write about the Washington football team, but should the topic come up in the future, we also won’t use the name. It’s time.
For the Observer’s sports department, this is no small decision. Just a half-dozen other newspapers have adopted such a policy, and the Observer is the first in a city with a significant Washington fan base. Before the Carolina Panthers came along, this was “Redskins Country,” and those long-timers who remain loyal to the team are probably the most likely to consider the 81-year-old nickname a significant part of the franchise’s tradition.
For decades, however, Native Americans have expressed discomfort with the Washington nickname. Perhaps the Observer should have taken a stand sooner. But our slowness in getting here doesn’t change the fact that, for us and a growing number of people, it’s the right place.
To us, the test is simple: If you were to have a conversation with a Native American, would you use the word “Redskins” to describe his or her ethnicity – or in any other way? We wouldn’t. Because it’s a slur.
It doesn’t matter that it’s a word that might once have been acceptable. Words grow up. They grow obsolete. They grow into something that’s distasteful. Or we grow up enough to realize they’ve been distasteful all along.
It also doesn’t matter that there are some, perhaps many, Native Americans who don’t believe it’s a slur. It matters that many do.
Finally, let’s dispose of the what-about-other-names argument. Redskins is not like the college teams named Seminoles or the helicopter named Chinook. Those names honor tribes. They do not denigrate a people.
For all of those reasons, the Observer and this editorial board have made a choice about what it will no longer print. Why, some might ask, are we announcing it? We believe readers should know about significant decisions like this. In this space, we also hope the cumulative rejection of the slur will eventually convince Washington owner Daniel Snyder that this “tradition” has become costly.
We know others will make different choices. If readers want to use the team’s nickname in letters about the controversy, we’ll print them. But the Observer’s sports editors and writers feel that typing that name is no longer the right thing to do. We agree. It’s time. It’s long past time.
---
So how about it, Chicos and others who like the nickname. If you were having a casual conversation with a Native American you don't know well, would you say:
"Has it been difficult being a Native American in today's United States?"
OR
"Has it been difficult being a redskin in today's United States?"
If the answer is not the latter - if you don't feel perfectly comfortable calling the person sitting across from you a redskin - than you probably are a hypocrite.
-
So we should ignore the majority of Native Americans that are just fine with the name, believe it IS a place of honor for the minority of Native Americans that don't believe that.
Well, you believe one way and others do not. I'm taking the view of Native Americans that don't want a bunch of guilt ridden white people to decide how they should think, especially when those same white people call them (indirectly or directly) stupid, dumb, uneducated, etc.
To each their own.
For me personally, I'm not going to use the name anymore. I've just come to realize it's not appropriate.
For you, when there is an official Nielson survey Native Americans, and 51% say Redskins is not appropriate, you'll stop using the name.
Is that fair?
-
MU82, I find that example to be so ridiculous that it is laughable, but to each their own.
It's similar to the ridiculous example from the Chicago Sun Times a few weeks ago in which he was widely lampooned for it by using the dropped hat example. The idea that you would say "hey Redskin, you dropped your hat". Stupid. You wouldn't say hey Irish guy, you dropped your hat either....or hey Down syndrome kid you dropped your hat. You would say, "sir, you dropped your hat".
If you think people using the name are hypocrites, I'd ask you stop using 100's of names that someone somewhere is outraged by....but we all know that isn't going to happen either. I'd ask that since some of the same Native Americans asking for the name to no longer be used also want the Blackhawks removed, then you're just being hypocritical if you support the Blackhawks....somewhere, someone is outraged.
And please, someone change the title of this thread before the smartest of the smart have their heads explode.
-
If you think people using the name are hypocrites, I'd ask you stop using 100's of names that someone somewhere is outraged by....but we all know that isn't going to happen either. I'd ask that since some of the same Native Americans asking for the name to no longer be used also want the Blackhawks removed, then you're just being hypocritical if you support the Blackhawks....somewhere, someone is outraged.
Again, for the 5th time. It's not all or nothing. It is fine to be outraged by Redskins and not be outraged by Blackhawks. I'm personally outraged by both but understand why others aren't. These things are on a spectrum and Redskins are further along on the outrage scale than the Blackhawks are. You address the worst first and move onto to the less blatant. And the Redskins are the worst on this scale, no question.
-
We are working with some Native organizations to pilot some technologies in reservation clinics. I have noticed that the national organizations we are synching with as well as individual tribes all refer to themselves as Indians.
I asked a senior Indian official in DC about the Native versus Indian nomenclature and he said that the vast majority of Indians involved in policy setting at the national level don't like the term 'native.' I asked about the Redskins issue and he made this comment: The Redskins branding is offensive as hell but the fact that Indians have the shortest life expectancy on this continent is an issue far more deserving of his considerable talent.
-
MU82, I find that example to be so ridiculous that it is laughable, but to each their own.
It's similar to the ridiculous example from the Chicago Sun Times a few weeks ago in which he was widely lampooned for it by using the dropped hat example. The idea that you would say "hey Redskin, you dropped your hat". Stupid. You wouldn't say hey Irish guy, you dropped your hat either....or hey Down syndrome kid you dropped your hat. You would say, "sir, you dropped your hat".
If you think people using the name are hypocrites, I'd ask you stop using 100's of names that someone somewhere is outraged by....but we all know that isn't going to happen either. I'd ask that since some of the same Native Americans asking for the name to no longer be used also want the Blackhawks removed, then you're just being hypocritical if you support the Blackhawks....somewhere, someone is outraged.
And please, someone change the title of this thread before the smartest of the smart have their heads explode.
My example wasn't "Hey, Redskin, you dropped your hat."
My example was two mature, intelligent people having a discussion about Native Americans, language and imagery.
You're sitting across the table from a Native American and you have a choice. You can refer to his/her people as Native Americans or you can refer to his/her people as redskins - a word you not only believe is OK to use but one you think most Native Americans associate with tradition, strength and courage, one you think most Native Americans like being used as a sports team nickname or mascot.
-
If you think people using the name are hypocrites, I'd ask you stop using 100's of names that someone somewhere is outraged by....but we all know that isn't going to happen either. I'd ask that since some of the same Native Americans asking for the name to no longer be used also want the Blackhawks removed, then you're just being hypocritical if you support the Blackhawks....somewhere, someone is outraged.
I don't care about anyone else's outrage.
I am opposed to the use of redskin because it is a racial slur. Not because some people think it's a racial slur or some people don't think it is. BECAUSE IT IS. You can look it up.
I am not opposed to the use of Chippewa, Blackhawk or Warrior because they are not racial slurs. You can look that up also.
Anyone who claims that there is an ounce of hypocrisy in this stance is hopeless.
-
I don't care about anyone else's outrage.
I am opposed to the use of redskin because it is a racial slur. Not because some people think it's a racial slur or some people don't think it is. BECAUSE IT IS. You can look it up.
I am not opposed to the use of Chippewa, Blackhawk or Warrior because they are not racial slurs. You can look that up also.
Anyone who claims that there is an ounce of hypocrisy in this stance is hopeless.
Exactly.
Dictionary.com:
noun, Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
1. a North American Indian.
British Dictionary:
noun
1. an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American.
Merriam-Webster online:
usually offensive: american indian
Oxford:
NOUN
DATED or OFFENSIVE
An American Indian.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online:
noun / offensive
› old-fashioned for a Native American
The Free Dictionary:
n. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.
MacMillan Dictionary:
NOUN [COUNTABLE] OFFENSIVE an old word meaning a "Native American"
SHALL I EFFEN GO ON? I GUESS NONE OF THESE EFFEN DICTIONARIES PASSED THE "POLL OF RACISTS" TEST.
-
We are working with some Native organizations to pilot some technologies in reservation clinics. I have noticed that the national organizations we are synching with as well as individual tribes all refer to themselves as Indians.
I asked a senior Indian official in DC about the Native versus Indian nomenclature and he said that the vast majority of Indians involved in policy setting at the national level don't like the term 'native.' I asked about the Redskins issue and he made this comment: The Redskins branding is offensive as hell but the fact that Indians have the shortest life expectancy on this continent is an issue far more deserving of his considerable talent.
I suppose I can agree with him that there are perhaps more pressing issues, but that doesn't mean the Redskins nickname is worth defending, as Chico does.
As to Indian vs. Native, people should be given the right to name themselves. If they prefer "Indian" to "Native," fine. It is a term rooted in historical inaccuracy, but I don't think it is offensive, just inaccurate. And I do think it should generally be "American Indian," so as to avoid confusion with Indian nationals or Indian-Americans (Asian Indians).
-
I suppose I can agree with him that there are perhaps more pressing issues, but that doesn't mean the Redskins nickname is worth defending, as Chico many Native Americans do...Chico has been gracious enough to provide videos, quotes, letters, etc of hundreds of such examples.
I fixed it for you
-
I fixed it for you
And Keefe just cited an example of an American-Indian community leader who thinks its horribly offensive. So what's your point?
-
My example wasn't "Hey, Redskin, you dropped your hat."
My example was two mature, intelligent people having a discussion about Native Americans, language and imagery.
You're sitting across the table from a Native American and you have a choice. You can refer to his/her people as Native Americans or you can refer to his/her people as redskins - a word you not only believe is OK to use but one you think most Native Americans associate with tradition, strength and courage, one you think most Native Americans like being used as a sports team nickname or mascot.
Understood, the dropping hat example was another bed wetting example from the Chicago Sun Times, and it was ridiculous from the word go.
I don't find yours any more compelling because it's not an example that exists in the real world. But, for giggles, I would say this. Sir, I'm curious why in a poll of Native Americans why your people are ok with Redskins as a nickname? I'm also curious if you are ok if I were to attend a football game of several Native American schools with Redskins as the nickname, would you be offended if I said "GO REDSKINS!"? If not, then am I ok to cheer for the Washington Redskins?
-
Understood, the dropping hat example was another bed wetting example from the Chicago Sun Times, and it was ridiculous from the word go.
I don't find yours any more compelling because it's not an example that exists in the real world. But, for giggles, I would say this. Sir, I'm curious why in a poll of Native Americans why your people are ok with Redskins as a nickname? I'm also curious if you are ok if I were to attend a football game of several Native American schools with Redskins as the nickname, would you be offended if I said "GO REDSKINS!"? If not, then am I ok to cheer for the Washington Redskins?
I would think you would say, "Sir, I'm curious why in a poll of redskins such as yourself, why your people are OK with Redskins as a nickname."
I'm sure you wouldn't feel even the least bit self-conscious about saying it that way because, you know, there's a 71% chance that the Native American sitting across from you actually prefers being called a redskin.
-
I suppose I can agree with him that there are perhaps more pressing issues, but that doesn't mean the Redskins nickname is worth defending, as Chico does.
As to Indian vs. Native, people should be given the right to name themselves. If they prefer "Indian" to "Native," fine. It is a term rooted in historical inaccuracy, but I don't think it is offensive, just inaccurate. And I do think it should generally be "American Indian," so as to avoid confusion with Indian nationals or Indian-Americans (Asian Indians).
My colleague is a Rosebud Sioux. He said everyone he knows would rather their tribe be used. He rarely says Indian and never says Native; he refers to the various nations by their tribal identity and uses 'nations' in the plural. Each tribe has a defined identity with an established culture featuring unique languages and traditions. His question is why do people feel it is acceptable to homogenize them and ignore their sui generis identity? If Italians and Germans are differentiated then so too should Sioux and Chippewa.
-
My colleague is a Rosebud Sioux. He said everyone he knows would rather their tribe be used. He rarely says Indian and never says Native; he refers to the various nations by their tribal identity and uses 'nations' in the plural. Each tribe has a defined identity with an established culture featuring unique languages and traditions. His question is why do people feel it is acceptable to homogenize them and ignore their sui generis identity? If Italians and Germans are differentiated then so too should Sioux and Chippewa.
Are you telling me that all Indians don't look alike?
-
Are you telling me that all Indians don't look alike?
No, that's Asians, man
-
I have read part of this thread but not all.....until Notre Dame changes their racist FIGHTING IRISH nickname I don't care. I am from Ireland, went to Marquette and I am very offended by the fighting midget leprechaun as a mascot. If you disagree you are an idiot.
-
And Keefe just cited an example of an American-Indian community leader who thinks its horribly offensive. So what's your point?
My point is that someone signaled me out as a non Native American that is fine with the nickname. I pointed out there are many Native Americans that are fine with it, just as there are some that are not. Relevancy
-
My colleague is a Rosebud Sioux. He said everyone he knows would rather their tribe be used. He rarely says Indian and never says Native; he refers to the various nations by their tribal identity and uses 'nations' in the plural. Each tribe has a defined identity with an established culture featuring unique languages and traditions. His question is why do people feel it is acceptable to homogenize them and ignore their sui generis identity? If Italians and Germans are differentiated then so too should Sioux and Chippewa.
I agree wholeheartedly!
-
No, that's Asians, man
Sorry, man. I get Asians and Indians mixed up all the time.
-
Sorry, man. I get Asians and Indians mixed up all the time.
I think Indians are Japanese who just got more sun
-
This thread reminded me of my favorite movie scene of all time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGkHK8Umew
-
This thread reminded me of my favorite movie scene of all time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGkHK8Umew
Bleuteaux, you're out of your element ;D
Fantastic scene.
-
MU82, when I'm sitting across the table, am I talking this young Native American?
https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4#t=37
Am I sitting across from this Native American, instead?
https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ
The table is getting bigger, perhaps this Native American?
https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg
What about this Native American....across from the table?
https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U
This gentleman?
(https://theboysareback.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/around-the-nfl-leader-of-the-navajo-code-talkers-defends-redskins-name-redskins-nation-repo.jpg?w=640&h=359)
etc, etc?
Different people feel differently about this, including Native Americans....the folks that are supposedly slurred yet so many find nothing wrong with the name AND even find it honorable....then again Lenny calls them dumb, ignorant, stupid, etc...so there's that.
-
MU82, when I'm sitting across the table, am I talking this young Native American?
https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4#t=37
Am I sitting across from this Native American, instead?
https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ
The table is getting bigger, perhaps this Native American?
https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg
What about this Native American....across from the table?
https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U
This gentleman?
(https://theboysareback.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/around-the-nfl-leader-of-the-navajo-code-talkers-defends-redskins-name-redskins-nation-repo.jpg?w=640&h=359)
etc, etc?
Different people feel differently about this, including Native Americans....the folks that are supposedly slurred yet so many find nothing wrong with the name AND even find it honorable....then again Lenny calls them dumb, ignorant, stupid, etc...so there's that.
I have nothing to do with what Lenny said. I didn't call anybody dumb.
So now am I supposed to go to the Internet and find a half-dozen Native Americans who are insulted by the term? If so, would that convince you?
No, because you have dug in are are convinced you are right about "redskins" not being an offensive term despite every dictionary on the planet describing it as one and despite the fact that many Native Americans ARE insulted by it.
And that's OK. I guess I've dug in, too. I like to think I've dug in on the more moral side of this issue, but you disagree and that's what makes a debate.
None of it matters, anyway. It's already been established that Snyder is going with Scalping Savages as the new nickname.
-
I don't expect you to find any Native American examples that are against the name, I have acknowledged up front that is the case. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to happen so infrequently here and elsewhere. Whenever someone mentions all the Native Americans that are fine with the name, folks tear down the messenger, tear down those people, do whatever they can to marginalize them. I guess that's just part of the debate, guilty as charged on my end. My point being that the "name changer" brigade can't wait to tell you about all those that want it changed, but God forbid if there are those that don't want it changed, or a poll(s) that say don't change it, etc, etc. Those don't seem to count.
I've dug in on several levels...it's a private company and they can do what they want.
The name has been around for 80 years and no team is going to name themselves after a nickname that brings dishonor to them....teams pick names of strength, pride, virtue, etc.
Removing names like this further push Native Americans out of the mainstream, but that view has been called dumb here by intellects like Lenny when that view is actually held by some Native Americans...go figure
Let the market decide, if the name if offensive, then people can stop buying tickets, merchandise, etc.
Someone has to stick up for Native Americans and their views....the irony is that I'm speaking up for the views that some don't like, yet that is one of the exact arguments the other side is using. It seems to me, the side I am sticking up for....their views don't count
Seeing Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe in a Redskins jacket and hat a few days leads me to believe that's where the new Redskins Stadium will be built.
-
I have nothing to do with what Lenny said. I didn't call anybody dumb.
I expect distortions of my positions from Chico. Not from you. I don't called Native Americans (or any group in general) dumb. All I've said, time after time, is that redskin is a slur by definition. It's true. Undeniably true, as you have pointed out. Some Native Americans are unaware of this, some know and oppose its use, some know and don't and still others (like Chico himself) know but still think it's great. The uninformed aren't necessarily dumb - lots of smart people are uniformed on lots of issues. That leaves the logical (not dumb), the apathetic (not dumb) and the illogical/stubborn/reactionaries (not dumb). Flying the flag of bigotry while professing love for the victim (Chico's position) isn't, by definition, dumb, but I certainly think it's wrong.
-
I expect distortions of my positions from Chico. Not from you. I don't called Native Americans (or any group in general) dumb. All I've said, time after time, is that redskin is a slur by definition. It's true. Undeniably true, as you have pointed out. Some Native Americans are unaware of this, some know and oppose its use, some know and don't and still others (like Chico himself) know but still think it's great. The uninformed aren't necessarily dumb - lots of smart people are uniformed on lots of issues. That leaves the logical (not dumb), the apathetic (not dumb) and the illogical/stubborn/reactionaries (not dumb). Flying the flag of bigotry while professing love for the victim (Chico's position) isn't, by definition, dumb, but I certainly think it's wrong.
My apologies. Seriously.
-
I don't expect you to find any Native American examples that are against the name, I have acknowledged up front that is the case. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to happen so infrequently here and elsewhere. Whenever someone mentions all the Native Americans that are fine with the name, folks tear down the messenger, tear down those people, do whatever they can to marginalize them. I guess that's just part of the debate, guilty as charged on my end. My point being that the "name changer" brigade can't wait to tell you about all those that want it changed, but God forbid if there are those that don't want it changed, or a poll(s) that say don't change it, etc, etc. Those don't seem to count.
I've dug in on several levels...it's a private company and they can do what they want.
The name has been around for 80 years and no team is going to name themselves after a nickname that brings dishonor to them....teams pick names of strength, pride, virtue, etc.
Removing names like this further push Native Americans out of the mainstream, but that view has been called dumb here by intellects like Lenny when that view is actually held by some Native Americans...go figure
Let the market decide, if the name if offensive, then people can stop buying tickets, merchandise, etc.
Someone has to stick up for Native Americans and their views....the irony is that I'm speaking up for the views that some don't like, yet that is one of the exact arguments the other side is using. It seems to me, the side I am sticking up for....their views don't count
Seeing Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe in a Redskins jacket and hat a few days leads me to believe that's where the new Redskins Stadium will be built.
You have stated your points, and I have stated mine. I guess I feel that if even 25% or 30% of Native Americans are insulted by the name, it should be enough - but you disagree. Neither of us will change, so there's no point going on.
If you choose to get the last word - as you almost always choose to do - I won't be responding any more to this thread. In fact, I won't even be clicking on it again, so I won't know if you got the last word or not!
Have a good one. See you on another thread.
-
I've dug in on several levels...it's a private company and they can do what they want.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone has challenged that. Of course they do fall under the authority of the NFL, so the decision could be taken out of their hands.
The name has been around for 80 years and no team is going to name themselves after a nickname that brings dishonor to them....teams pick names of strength, pride, virtue, etc.
Intent doesn't matter. Perception does. I'm sure Marquette created Willie Wampum with the intent of having a mascot that embodies strength, pride, and virtue. But looking back on it, it is nothing but a disgrace.
Removing names like this further push Native Americans out of the mainstream, but that view has been called dumb here by intellects like Lenny when that view is actually held by some Native Americans...go figure
I accept this argument. But I challenge that there is a way to keep Native Americans from being pushed out of the mainstream without using a racial slur as the mascot. I think changing it to the name of a local tribe would be a great compromise.
Let the market decide, if the name if offensive, then people can stop buying tickets, merchandise, etc.
I agree with this as well. No one is advocating for a government order to change the mascot. I think this process has started. It doesn't have enough strength now, but will eventually.
Someone has to stick up for Native Americans and their views....the irony is that I'm speaking up for the views that some don't like, yet that is one of the exact arguments the other side is using. It seems to me, the side I am sticking up for....their views don't count
This is a noble goal. We are doing the same thing. You are sticking up for the 1-10% of Native Americans who would be impacted negatively if the Redskins moniker changed. We are sticking up for the 30% of Native Americans who are impacted negatively by the Redskins moniker remaining. To me, this is a utilitarian no brainer.
-
My apologies. Seriously.
Accepted and thanks.
-
This is a noble goal. We are doing the same thing. You are sticking up for the 1-10% of Native Americans who would be impacted negatively if the Redskins moniker changed. We are sticking up for the 30% of Native Americans who are impacted negatively by the Redskins moniker remaining. To me, this is a utilitarian no brainer.
Please quantify both numbers and tell me how you derive at them. Also, please quantify impacted negatively....is a nickname in Washington, D.C. preventing a Native American in Oklahoma from earning a living, going to school, etc? You may be right, but I'd like to know where your numbers and broad statements of impact come from. To me, there are far far far far more important issues that negatively impact Native Americans that if the bed wetting crowd would get behind could actually improve their lives more than anything a nickname does or doesn't do.
-
I expect distortions of my positions from Chico. Not from you. I don't called Native Americans (or any group in general) dumb. All I've said, time after time, is that redskin is a slur by definition. It's true. Undeniably true, as you have pointed out. Some Native Americans are unaware of this, some know and oppose its use, some know and don't and still others (like Chico himself) know but still think it's great. The uninformed aren't necessarily dumb - lots of smart people are uniformed on lots of issues. That leaves the logical (not dumb), the apathetic (not dumb) and the illogical/stubborn/reactionaries (not dumb). Flying the flag of bigotry while professing love for the victim (Chico's position) isn't, by definition, dumb, but I certainly think it's wrong.
Some Native Americans are "unaware of this".....sounds like a dog whisper to me. Then of course, when those that ARE aware of it and STILL want to keep the name, you call people like that bigots, unethnical, ignorant...but only if they are a poster here or a white guy somewhere else. But apparently those words, WHICH YOU USED, don't apply to Native Americans that want to keep the name?
LOL. Sorry, but I haven't distorted your position one damn bit. YOU were the one that called people that support the name in those terms. So, by common sense, if Native Americans support it, you are calling them the same names. You can try to spin out of it all you want.
Finally, when Native Americans say it is NOT A SLUR, then how is it a slur? You two have decided to use a definition of the word Redskin that states it is a slur....what you should have done is look at the definition of the word slur. That's the biggest part of this whole thing that you aren't processing. If someone that is supposedly slurred doesn't think it is a slur, then there is no slurring action being taken in their view. Maybe it's because they are uneducated, or unaware...tsk tsk. Or maybe, they just don't find it to be a slur. Imagine that.
The definition of a slur is that a term or insinuation, etc "is likely to insult them or damage their reputation." If the party that is supposedly slurred does not believe they are insulted, does not believe it hurts their reputation (in fact, they find it a term of endearment or even honor), that isn't a slur. Yet, in your high and mighty view, this is settled....no, wait, it's "UNDENIABLY TRUE". No, it isn't....because you have failed to define what a slur is and who is actually being slurred has to believe that is the case.
-
Please quantify both numbers and tell me how you derive at them. Also, please quantify impacted negatively....is a nickname in Washington, D.C. preventing a Native American in Oklahoma from earning a living, going to school, etc? You may be right, but I'd like to know where your numbers and broad statements of impact come from. To me, there are far far far far more important issues that negatively impact Negative Americans that if the bed wetting crowd would get behind could actually improve their lives more than anything a nickname does or doesn't do.
The 30% came from the poll you have cited frequently. The 1-10% was an educated guess on my part. The "negative impact" would be defined by me as a non expert as the psychological dissonance caused by living in a country where the dominate culture thinks so little of my ethnicity that they use a racial slur for my people as a mascot. But I am a non-expert. You could also use the American Psychological Association's study which I linked to earlier in the thread.
http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx
Are they bed wetters too?
And I do agree, there are many more important issues that need to be solved. But that doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be solved.
Again, you are very good at pointing out why the other side is flawed. You are very bad at pointing out the benefits of your side.
-
The 30% came from the poll you have cited frequently. The 1-10% was an educated guess on my part. The "negative impact" would be defined by me as a non expert as the psychological dissonance caused by living in a country where the dominate culture thinks so little of my ethnicity that they use a racial slur for my people as a mascot. But I am a non-expert. You could also use the American Psychological Association's study which I linked to earlier in the thread.
http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx
Are they bed wetters too?
And I do agree, there are many more important issues that need to be solved. But that doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be solved.
Again, you are very good at pointing out why the other side is flawed. You are very bad at pointing out the benefits of your side.
The 30% merely stated the don't like the nickname....what I'm asking is how does that negatively impact them as you described? How so, to what degree, what does negatively impact even mean in your definition? Can't get a job? Don't qualify for health insurance? Lowers self-esteem? How do you quantify any of those things? I think you are extrapolating 30% that don't like the name to somehow state this has a negative impact and that's a very broad statement to make.
I think I have pointed out the benefits to my side of the argument many times, you may not agree with them....thus I may be "very bad" at it. ;)
-
Just keep posting 'til you drive everyone away.
You have over 125 posts in this one thread alone - all saying the same thing.
-
The 30% merely stated the don't like the nickname....what I'm asking is how does that negatively impact them as you described? How so, to what degree, what does negatively impact even mean in your definition? Can't get a job? Don't qualify for health insurance? Lowers self-esteem? How do you quantify any of those things? I think you are extrapolating 30% that don't like the name to somehow state this has a negative impact and that's a very broad statement to make.
I gave you a well vetted study done by experts in the field. Not sure what more you want.
I think I have pointed out the benefits to my side of the argument many times, you may not agree with them....thus I may be "very bad" at it. ;)
You have listed five reasons you were fighting for this. Four of them were not benefits for keeping Redskins, they were reasons why changing the Redskins mascot is a flawed idea. One of them was a benefit for keeping the Redskins.
-
Like MU82, I am also retiring from this thread. I always end up feeling frustrated with these exchanges with Chico and its just not worth the effort anymore, I have better things to do. Going for a run now. See you all on another thread.
-
Marijuana.....First of all, it is not always a felony. Second, I just ask for consistency. More and more studies showing the health harms caused by it, be it heart, brain, etc. We can't wait to get rid of tobacco in this country and tax it to such extremes and sue companies to the point of ridiculousness, but we're all fine and dandy of bringing in this drug for new revenues. Why the double standard? Who does one sue down the road when this all goes to hell? The gov't? LOL.
And another out today.... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/teens-who-smoke-cannabis-daily-seven-times-more-likely-commit-suicide-1464983
-
I gave you a well vetted study done by experts in the field. Not sure what more you want.
Honestly, don't recall seeing them. Could you provide again.
We will agree to disagree on the five reasons. Private company making their own decisions is a benefit regardless of what the name is, as it is core the principles private vs public ownership. Just one example.
-
Finally, when Native Americans say it is NOT A SLUR, then how is it a slur? You two have decided to use a definition of the word Redskin that states it is a slur....what you should have done is look at the definition of the word slur. That's the biggest part of this whole thing that you aren't processing. If someone that is supposedly slurred doesn't think it is a slur, then there is no slurring action being taken in their view. Maybe it's because they are uneducated, or unaware...tsk tsk. Or maybe, they just don't find it to be a slur. Imagine that.
The definition of a slur is that a term or insinuation, etc "is likely to insult them or damage their reputation." If the party that is supposedly slurred does not believe they are insulted, does not believe it hurts their reputation (in fact, they find it a term of endearment or even honor), that isn't a slur. Yet, in your high and mighty view, this is settled....no, wait, it's "UNDENIABLY TRUE". No, it isn't....because you have failed to define what a slur is and who is actually being slurred has to believe that is the case.
You continue to miss the point. I'm not the one who has decided that "redskin" is a slur. It's the dictionary - you know, that pesky book of definitions that you have so often in the past used to defend yourself (here's where you would say something about irony and hypocrisy). When your efforts result in a new definition - how about "redskin", (noun) formerly a term used to denigrate Native Americans, formerly a slur (see porch monkey, spic, wop, etc.), now a term that honors those same peoples - then I'll embrace your view. Until then, though, you're just a guy twisting himself into a pretzel trying to defend the bigoted and the backward with silly arguments that are reminiscent of the Clintonian "that depends on what your definition of is is". Like others, I too have grown weary. Reasonable people can easily distinguish between what honors and what denigrates. They know that "warrior" and "redskin" carry opposite connotations and are not at all similar, let alone synonymous. The hardcore PC crowd, though, is anything but reasonable. Same goes for you.
-
Honestly, don't recall seeing them. Could you provide again.
We will agree to disagree on the five reasons. Private company making their own decisions is a benefit regardless of what the name is, as it is core the principles private vs public ownership. Just one example.
You quoted it in your last post.
http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx
-
I had dropped out of this conversation but I'm dropping back in after letters offering different viewpoints appeared in the Charlotte Observer the last few days.
In Friday's Observer, a Lumbee Indian said he was "very proud of being called a redskin" and said he resents it being termed a slur. He said "over 90% of the American Indians have no problem with the word."
In today's Observer, another Lumbee Indian wrote that he had to "vehemently disagree" with the first guy's assertions. He said he not only resented being labeled a redskin but would "not stand by and allow someone to address me by that name without some type of swift response." He concluded by saying: "I don't know where he generated his 90% approval rating from American Indians for the 'redskins' name, but this statistic has no basis in fact."
I've already articulated my stance, so this is just food for thought.
-
You continue to miss the point. I'm not the one who has decided that "redskin" is a slur. It's the dictionary - you know, that pesky book of definitions that you have so often in the past used to defend yourself (here's where you would say something about irony and hypocrisy). When your efforts result in a new definition - how about "redskin", (noun) formerly a term used to denigrate Native Americans, formerly a slur (see porch monkey, spic, wop, etc.), now a term that honors those same peoples - then I'll embrace your view. Until then, though, you're just a guy twisting himself into a pretzel trying to defend the bigoted and the backward with silly arguments that are reminiscent of the Clintonian "that depends on what your definition of is is". Like others, I too have grown weary. Reasonable people can easily distinguish between what honors and what denigrates. They know that "warrior" and "redskin" carry opposite connotations and are not at all similar, let alone synonymous. The hardcore PC crowd, though, is anything but reasonable. Same goes for you.
I think you miss the point...to be slurred one has to feel they are slurred against. That's what gives the word meaning. As MU82 points out below and I have countless times, there are many Native Americans that DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A SLUR....THEY DO NOT FEEL SLURRED BY THE WORD. Some are in the opposite camp, but it's not a slur if you don't believe you are slurred against.
I'm glad you find the dictionary wonderful....who defines words for the dictionary? Who gets to decide a word is a slur or not? Is there a committee? No different than reading history books. It's who tells the story of history that often gives history it's meaning, but that doesn't mean that is what happened in totality.
There's a word used here in the US that is defined as a name you shouldn't use against male homosexuals. That same word is used freely in Europe that means a tiring task as a noun, or even as a verb to work tirelessly. It also is slang for a cigarette. This just in, words have different meanings to different people, different cultures, etc. AND THAT INCLUDES Native Americans that disagree on this particular word, some hate it and many do not.
-
Ellenson's Tap - just give it up. Until every single Native American has been polled and has rejected the Redskin name as a slur, some will continue to think it is perfectly fine to use that slur. Maybe it makes them feel better about their own pale skin to denigrate others.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK-jYzaWtw?hl=en_US&version=3
-
I laughed
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK-jYzaWtw?hl=en_US&version=3
Vulgar, rude, low brow, but dammit if South Park doesn't come up with some of the best and hilarious social commentary of the current day and age.
-
Truly amazing
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/09/25/washpost-columnist-blusters-obamas-fcc-will-ban-word-redskins-tv
-
Truly amazing
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/09/25/washpost-columnist-blusters-obamas-fcc-will-ban-word-redskins-tv
Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?
Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.
-
Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?
Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.
Exactly right. If this changed is forced upon the team via the FCC and the like, it gives people like Chicos the ability to play the victim. Most people know that the name is wrong. It should be changed, not by the government, but simply because it is the right thing to do.
-
Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?
Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.
Agree with this completely.
Agree with FCC's sentiment, but disagree with the tactic.
-
Exactly right. If this changed is forced upon the team via the FCC and the like, it gives people like Chicos the ability to play the victim. Most people know that the name is wrong. It should be changed, not by the government, but simply because it is the right thing to do.
Precisely. I agree with you.
However it does raise the question...if the one person who is capable of doing the right thing (Dan Snyder) refuses to do the right thing, should anything else be done by those who have the ability to do something?
I think the generic answer is yes. I just don't think this was the right solution.
-
Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?
Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.
The Dan Snyder/Chicos crowd is dug in. Expecting a come to Jesus moment from them is probably folly but anything's possible, I suppose.
The resentment that is still felt over the "Warriors" nickname is justified. All the "education" in the world can't turn that word into a negative, let alone a racial slur. Not in the same ballpark with "Redskin".
-
Precisely. I agree with you.
However it does raise the question...if the one person who is capable of doing the right thing (Dan Snyder) refuses to do the right thing, should anything else be done by those who have the ability to do something?
I think the generic answer is yes. I just don't think this was the right solution.
The NFL should then do it. Or the broadcasters can continue with not saying the name. Maybe the pregame shows can stop using the graphic.
-
Precisely. I agree with you.
However it does raise the question...if the one person who is capable of doing the right thing (Dan Snyder) refuses to do the right thing, should anything else be done by those who have the ability to do something?
I think the generic answer is yes. I just don't think this was the right solution.
Educate, sure. Boycott? If you want. Call it out for the bigotry it represents? Absolutely. Use the heavy hand of government? No freakin' way. A government with that kind of power is dangerous to everyone.
-
The NFL should then do it. Or the broadcasters can continue with not saying the name. Maybe the pregame shows can stop using the graphic.
All good ideas
-
Educate, sure. Boycott? If you want. Call it out for the bigotry it represents? Absolutely. Use the heavy hand of government? No freakin' way. A government with that kind of power is dangerous to everyone.
Agreed
-
The Dan Snyder/Chicos crowd is dug in. Expecting a come to Jesus moment from them is probably folly but anything's possible, I suppose.
The resentment that is still felt over the "Warriors" nickname is justified. All the "education" in the world can't turn that word into a negative, let alone a racial slur. Not in the same ballpark with "Redskin".
It may not be with Snyder as the head, but the administration will eventually have a come to Jesus moment.
Warriors isn't in the same ballpark as Redskins, but Willie Wampum was even worse. We turned our team into a racial slur. Now I don't agree with how the name was changed or that it should have been changed. But there was plenty of education that could have been done. We should have switched to a Graeco-Roman type Warrior and obliterated any of the offensive native american imagery that was still being used. Would have been a great opportunity for education and an honest apology for our actions in the past. Instead we tried to sweep it under the rug like a child would do.
-
Warriors isn't in the same ballpark as Redskins, but Willie Wampum was even worse. We turned our team into a racial slur. Now I don't agree with how the name was changed or that it should have been changed. But there was plenty of education that could have been done. We should have switched to a Graeco-Roman type Warrior and obliterated any of the offensive native american imagery that was still being used. Would have been a great opportunity for education and an honest apology for our actions in the past. Instead we tried to sweep it under the rug like a child would do.
This is so right.
We could have kept Warriors if we were proactive and did, basically, what the Golden State Warriors did.
Instead, we tried to do what the Redskins are doing - telling Indians that they should be honored to be a team mascot.
Had we just gone away from the Indian imagery and embraced other warriors, we would still be the Warriors.
Water under the bridge now, though.
-
Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?
Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.
Are you telling me the Color Purple isn't allowed to be shown on tv? Why is the n word allowed on network television? Are you telling me lyrics in songs are rejected because of racial slurs? While we are at it, should movies be banned that show the cavalry killing Indians? How about Vietnam movies when they call the enemy something that doesn't please the ears...Platoon no longer going to be on network tv (I'm not talking cable tv, I'm talking NETWORK TV).
Please.
There is no ownership of a mistake because mistake hasn't been made.
-
Precisely. I agree with you.
However it does raise the question...if the one person who is capable of doing the right thing (Dan Snyder) refuses to do the right thing, should anything else be done by those who have the ability to do something?
I think the generic answer is yes. I just don't think this was the right solution.
Thanks for quoting Sultan's comments. I have to laugh when he says "most people" when in fact every poll shows that isn't the case. Most people don't think it is wrong, he can pretend to make up numbers and feelings all he wants, but he isn't entitled to his own facts.
Will the name be ultimately changed? Probably....but hopefully not until many more pants pissers have drenched themselves. It's not a place for the gov't, it's a private business.
-
nm
-
I give up. Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYs7QagnDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYs7QagnDc
-
Keep trying, you'll get the video or picture in there eventually Aughanure. ;)
-
Keep trying, you'll get the video or picture in there eventually Aughanure. ;)
It's the worst :(
-
Thanks for quoting Sultan's comments. I have to laugh when he says "most people" when in fact every poll shows that isn't the case. Most people don't think it is wrong, he can pretend to make up numbers and feelings all he wants, but he isn't entitled to his own facts.
You are correct.
I will say "An increasing number of people..." instead of "Most..."
Just like with all sorts of issues, eventually it will be "most" and those that stood in its way are going to look foolish in retrospect. Racial equality...gender equality...gay marriage...
History will treat you and your ilk as standing up for a racial slur for a football team nickname. Congratulations. Wear it with pride.
-
Thanks for quoting Sultan's comments. I have to laugh when he says "most people" when in fact every poll shows that isn't the case. Most people don't think it is wrong, he can pretend to make up numbers and feelings all he wants, but he isn't entitled to his own facts.
Every poll conducted in Germany during the late 1930s showed that most people didn't find "kike" offensive.
-
Are you telling me the Color Purple isn't allowed to be shown on tv? Why is the n word allowed on network television? Are you telling me lyrics in songs are rejected because of racial slurs? While we are at it, should movies be banned that show the cavalry killing Indians? How about Vietnam movies when they call the enemy something that doesn't please the ears...Platoon no longer going to be on network tv (I'm not talking cable tv, I'm talking NETWORK TV).
Please.
There is no ownership of a mistake because mistake hasn't been made.
?-(
Um what? Those things are already censored on network tv. You can't say the n word or disparaging terms for Vietnamese on network tv or the radio. And no, movies should still be shown showing Indians being slaughtered by white men because it goes towards owning out history and educating on why it was wrong
-
Why doesn't anybody moan about the atrocities committed by Genghis Khan, Mohammed or the Native Americans upon each other? Why is it only Northern Europeans who are to be condemned for conquering other lands? Nobody decries the fact that slavery still exists in Africa and parts of the Middle East. Just dump on the very people who created one of the few countries that (Most) persons would move to if they could and opened it up to ALL Races and
Creeds. It ain't perfect but it's the best we got (Churchill)
-
Why doesn't anybody moan about the atrocities committed by Genghis Khan, Mohammed or the Native Americans upon each other? Why is it only Northern Europeans who are to be condemned for conquering other lands? Nobody decries the fact that slavery still exists in Africa and parts of the Middle East. Just dump on the very people who created one of the few countries that (Most) persons would move to if they could and opened it up to ALL Races and
Creeds. It ain't perfect but it's the best we got (Churchill)
Uh...what? What exactly does this have to do with the Redskins nickname?
-
Why doesn't anybody moan about the atrocities committed by Genghis Khan, Mohammed or the Native Americans upon each other? Why is it only Northern Europeans who are to be condemned for conquering other lands? Nobody decries the fact that slavery still exists in Africa and parts of the Middle East. Just dump on the very people who created one of the few countries that (Most) persons would move to if they could and opened it up to ALL Races and
Creeds. It ain't perfect but it's the best we got (Churchill)
After reading a biography on Genghis Khan I found a newfound respect. He was far more intelligent than some robo-warrior. And when he conquered areas he actually didn't do anything any different than any other culture did at that time.
-
Why doesn't anybody moan about the atrocities committed by Genghis Khan, Mohammed or the Native Americans upon each other? Why is it only Northern Europeans who are to be condemned for conquering other lands? Nobody decries the fact that slavery still exists in Africa and parts of the Middle East. Just dump on the very people who created one of the few countries that (Most) persons would move to if they could and opened it up to ALL Races and
Creeds. It ain't perfect but it's the best we got (Churchill)
Are you really playing the poor white man/if others do it than it must be ok card?
-
The Daily Show gang had fun with Redskins fans on Thursday night.
It seemed that many of these fans, who contended (of course) that "redksins" was a proud way to honor Indians, were not comfortable discussing the situation with actual Indians. And they certainly didn't want to be wearing their Redskins garb around the Indians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/redskins-fans-featured-on-daily-show-tried-to-revoke-consent-before-segement-aired/2014/09/26/f2338b26-45ac-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html
-
?-(
Um what? Those things are already censored on network tv. You can't say the n word or disparaging terms for Vietnamese on network tv or the radio. And no, movies should still be shown showing Indians being slaughtered by white men because it goes towards owning out history and educating on why it was wrong
Uhm, actually you can...on network tv. Late hours, documentaries, etc. There is an entire website that shows all the times it was used on network tv over the years. Of course, on cable channels the ability to use certain words is much more pervasive, even basic cable.
-
Glad my shareholder vote counted....along with the other 99.9% of us
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/09/30/99-9-of-fedex-shareholders-ok-with-redskins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+%28Industry+Sports%29
-
Glad my shareholder vote counted....along with the other 99.9% of us
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/09/30/99-9-of-fedex-shareholders-ok-with-redskins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+%28Industry+Sports%29
Who was the sole holdout? Kim Jong-Un or Ayatollah Khamenei?
-
Glad my shareholder vote counted....along with the other 99.9% of us
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/09/30/99-9-of-fedex-shareholders-ok-with-redskins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+%28Industry+Sports%29
But why would the Oneida tribe have asked FedEx to end the relationship if they think the nickname is a sign of pride?
-
But why would the Oneida tribe have asked FedEx to end the relationship if they think the nickname is a sign of pride?
Because there is always someone outraged about something. Why would PETA ask us to stop eating meat? Why would NOW be outraged the last few weeks but asleep at the wheel in the 1990's? Why would the AMA support a certain person's healthcare plan, but majority of doctors don't (despite the AMA being the organization that represents doctors).
All kinds of reasons.
Those that are upset, I suggest they use UPS only.
-
Because there is always someone outraged about something. Why would PETA ask us to stop eating meat? Why would NOW be outraged the last few weeks but asleep at the wheel in the 1990's? Why would the AMA support a certain person's healthcare plan, but majority of doctors don't (despite the AMA being the organization that represents doctors).
All kinds of reasons.
Those that are upset, I suggest they use UPS only.
great, now a jab at unions
-
Because there is always someone outraged about something. Why would PETA ask us to stop eating meat? Why would NOW be outraged the last few weeks but asleep at the wheel in the 1990's? Why would the AMA support a certain person's healthcare plan, but majority of doctors don't (despite the AMA being the organization that represents doctors).
All kinds of reasons.
Those that are upset, I suggest they use UPS only.
But you said Natives view it as a sign of respect. I am confused.
-
Glad my shareholder vote counted....along with the other 99.9% of us
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/09/30/99-9-of-fedex-shareholders-ok-with-redskins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+%28Industry+Sports%29
Surveys mean nothing.
I won't pay attention to them until they agree with what I want, and then I will constantly research them and post them on the internet to support my argument.
-
Glad my shareholder vote counted....along with the other 99.9% of us
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/09/30/99-9-of-fedex-shareholders-ok-with-redskins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+%28Industry+Sports%29
Yes, and in the 1700s, the founding fathers decided that African Americans only counted as 3/5s of a person.
Because a bunch of mostly white shareholders think something is right doesn't mean that it is. Just like we look at the 3/5 compromise as an example of conventionalized racism from the 1700s, future generations will look at the Redskins as an example of conventionalized racism from the early 21st century.
-
I wonder what the over/under is on the number of Chicos posts - just in this one thread. My guess would be 120.
Why is he allowed to hijack thread after thread just to satisfy his god complex. Am I the only one who is tired of this?
-
I wonder what the over/under is on the number of Chicos posts - just in this one thread. My guess would be 120.
Why is he allowed to hijack thread after thread just to satisfy his god complex. Am I the only one who is tired of this?
I'm ok with this one, he at least stays on topic here.
-
Because there is always someone outraged about something. Why would PETA ask us to stop eating meat? Why would NOW be outraged the last few weeks but asleep at the wheel in the 1990's? Why would the AMA support a certain person's healthcare plan, but majority of doctors don't (despite the AMA being the organization that represents doctors).
Why are you outraged by people being outraged? People have the right to feel and express their outrage, just like you are doing now.
-
But you said Natives view it as a sign of respect. I am confused.
Seems a symptom you come down with often. ;D
I said some Native Americans. I provided polls, provided letters, provided statements, provided videos. Some Native Americans.
-
Yes, and in the 1700s, the founding fathers decided that African Americans only counted as 3/5s of a person.
Because a bunch of mostly white shareholders think something is right doesn't mean that it is. Just like we look at the 3/5 compromise as an example of conventionalized racism from the 1700s, future generations will look at the Redskins as an example of conventionalized racism from the early 21st century.
Godwin's Law 2.0....congratulations
-
I'm ok with this one, he at least stays on topic here.
Consider it a source of information that doesn't feed into your confirmation bias that you guys normally get. Refreshing to break out of your bubble every once in a while. Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Rachel can't do all your thinking for you. ;)
-
Surveys mean nothing.
I won't pay attention to them until they agree with what I want, and then I will constantly research them and post them on the internet to support my argument.
On this subject, just about every survey supports my position.....much like the surveys about a lot of others things currently going on or reflective of the dolts running the show. I'm feeling pretty mainstream right now. ;)
-
Consider it a source of information that doesn't feed into your confirmation bias that you guys normally get. Refreshing to break out of your bubble every once in a while. Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Rachel can't do all your thinking for you. ;)
And here is where you go from having a dialogue to making petty attacks. Please don't play into your own stereotype. Yes, the phrasing was intentional
-
And here is where you go from having a dialogue to making petty attacks. Please don't play into your own stereotype. Yes, the phrasing was intentional
Hypocrite, you make a statement about him dripping with sarcasm and are then offended when Chico's responds in kind. You guys are comical, having your little cat fights while everyone else in the room is rolling their eyes.
-
Consider it a source of information that doesn't feed into your confirmation bias that you guys normally get. Refreshing to break out of your bubble every once in a while. Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Rachel can't do all your thinking for you. ;)
I actually listen to conservative talk radio almost every day (I spend 2-3 hours in my car commuting everyday)....Jay Weber in the morning, Belling and Hannity at night. Usually its for laughs, but once in a while I get a legitimate perspective I hadn't imagined before.
That said, history will judge you as dead wrong on this issue.
-
Yes, and in the 1700s, the founding fathers decided that African Americans only counted as 3/5s of a person.
Because a bunch of mostly white shareholders think something is right doesn't mean that it is. Just like we look at the 3/5 compromise as an example of conventionalized racism from the 1700s, future generations will look at the Redskins as an example of conventionalized racism from the early 21st century.
Let's be honest here.
-
That said, history will judge you as dead wrong on this issue.
+10,000. As much as Chico likes to mock "outrage" it was at the core of this country's founding and the basis for all the progress made here on every human rights issue. The messes we have to clean up to make a more perfect union are smaller and sometimes more nuanced than slavery, voting rights for women, anti sodomy laws, etc., but that doesn't mean they're not messes.
History will definitely conclude (and sooner than most think) that using a racial slur for a team nickname is wrong. As hard as it is for most people today to imagine that majorities in this country once endorsed slavery, non citizenship for women and homosexuality as a mental disease, so will it be hard for generations to come to imagine anything short of a small, bigoted group backing the use of "redskins".
-
Godwin's Law 2.0....congratulations
You do not know what Godwin's Law is, but go have fun supporting the use of a racial epithet.
-
+10,000. As much as Chico likes to mock "outrage" it was at the core of this country's founding and the basis for all the progress made here on every human rights issue. The messes we have to clean up to make a more perfect union are smaller and sometimes more nuanced than slavery, voting rights for women, anti sodomy laws, etc., but that doesn't mean they're not messes.
History will definitely conclude (and sooner than most think) that using a racial slur for a team nickname is wrong. As hard as it is for most people today to imagine that majorities in this country once endorsed slavery, non citizenship for women and homosexuality as a mental disease, so will it be hard for generations to come to imagine anything short of a small, bigoted group backing the use of "redskins".
Colorado's AP History class would like a word with you.
-
Colorado's AP History class would like a word with you.
That's because most history taught today begins with the Civil Rights movement and not the story of this countries founding and principles. It mostly is a tirade against Europeans ignoring the fact that this is the most welcoming country in the universe. I have read the books our kids get these days and attended lectures by the "teachers" who spew this propaganda.
-
That's because most history taught today begins with the Civil Rights movement and not the story of this countries founding and principles. It mostly is a tirade against Europeans ignoring the fact that this is the most welcoming country in the universe. I have read the books our kids get these days and attended lectures by the "teachers" who spew this propaganda.
I don't understand why people view this as an either/or proposition. The country's founding and its principles should absolutely be celebrated, and our missteps should be looked at in the context of the times - but there were missteps. They belong in the history books too.
I'm generally very bullish on the USA both past and present - think we've been mostly both lucky and good. But I think part of that goodness is a striving to always be better.
-
Colorado's AP History class would like a word with you.
http://www.youtube.com/e/4XEq6XYtMVU
-
I don't understand why people view this as an either/or proposition. The country's founding and its principles should absolutely be celebrated, and our missteps should be looked at in the context of the times - but there were missteps. They belong in the history books too.
I'm generally very bullish on the USA both past and present - think we've been mostly both lucky and good. But I think part of that goodness is a striving to always be better.
Couldn't agree more. It just seems that the emphasis is on how bad we are.
-
That's because most history taught today begins with the Civil Rights movement and not the story of this countries founding and principles. It mostly is a tirade against Europeans ignoring the fact that this is the most welcoming country in the universe. I have read the books our kids get these days and attended lectures by the "teachers" who spew this propaganda.
I don't know where your kids went to school, but my kids learned American history starting far earlier than that. They learned about the Trail of Tears, Revolution, Civil War, etc.
-
Hypocrite, you make a statement about him dripping with sarcasm and are then offended when Chico's responds in kind. You guys are comical, having your little cat fights while everyone else in the room is rolling their eyes.
Can you please point this post out to me? Cause I feel that I have been nothing but cordial in this discussion.
This isn't a cat fight. Or at least it doesn't have to be. I continue to engage in this dialogue because I think it is an important topic in modern day society. I'm glad to have people like Chicos who care enough to be willing to discuss it. These things need to be discussed out in the open, that's how we can make progress. Sweeping it under the rug (e.g. the Warriors switch), just leads to resentment and allows old wounds to fester.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24732614/fcc-will-consider-petition-to-ban-redskins-nickname-from-airwaves
How are they going to accomplish this? Announcers still today call Marquette the Warriors from time to time. I doubt it will ever stop. Are they going to beep out on a delay every time an announcer says "Redskins"?
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
-
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24732614/fcc-will-consider-petition-to-ban-redskins-nickname-from-airwaves
How are they going to accomplish this? Announcers still today call Marquette the Warriors from time to time. I doubt it will ever stop. Are they going to beep out on a delay every time an announcer says "Redskins"?
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Fines. Its not that hard.
-
Seems a symptom you come down with often. ;D
I said some Native Americans. I provided polls, provided letters, provided statements, provided videos. Some Native Americans.
We are working with American Indian groups at the national advocacy and tribal levels. They categorically do not like the term, "Native American." The proper nomenclature is "Indian Country" for the macro or collective and Tribe/Tribal for the specific.
-
I don't know where your kids went to school, but my kids learned American history starting far earlier than that. They learned about the Trail of Tears, Revolution, Civil War, etc.
You're right. Elephantman was just exaggerating (lying) to try to make his same old political point.
-
We are working with American Indian groups at the national advocacy and tribal levels. They categorically do not like the term, "Native American." The proper nomenclature is "Indian Country" for the macro or collective and Tribe/Tribal for the specific.
Where'd the term "Native American" come from?
-
Where'd the term "Native American" come from?
I think the same people who came up with Chief Wahoo, Chief Knockahoma and Willie Wampum.
To suggest there is anything resembling a consensus within Indian Country would be to say there is a consensus among Asian states. All I know is that in all correspondence and formal documents the Indian organizations and tribes use the terms Indian Country and Tribes/Tribal. I have gotten to know the Presidentially-appointed director of a national health related entity, a Lakota Sioux who has an MD and MPH from Harvard, and she stated plainly that "Native American" is meaningless to Indians and is yet another convention concocted by Caucasians to attempt to categorize or explain Indians.
In any event, these people are grossly underserved and under-researched and are easily the most underrepresented group in the United States. White people have inflicted grievous harm on them and the continued use of offensive imagery is despicable. If our only recognition of them as human beings is through the use of grossly distorted caricatures, simplistic renderings of their beliefs and practices, and naïve petulance over objections to our own ignorance then we only further the contempt we have for them as human beings. Anyone educated in the Jesuit tradition should understand this.
-
Then there's the Russian chick, Ivana Biturkockov.
-
Can you please point this post out to me? Cause I feel that I have been nothing but cordial in this discussion.
This isn't a cat fight. Or at least it doesn't have to be. I continue to engage in this dialogue because I think it is an important topic in modern day society. I'm glad to have people like Chicos who care enough to be willing to discuss it. These things need to be discussed out in the open, that's how we can make progress. Sweeping it under the rug (e.g. the Warriors switch), just leads to resentment and allows old wounds to fester.
I apologize, I couldn't sleep and was obviously a bit crabby. There is a lot of good discussion going on in this thread, just don't like when it starts to get personal at times. My bad.
-
Fines. Its not that hard.
Exactly. $10,000 to the network, $10,000 to the director, and $10,000 to the on-air voice for every utterance will do just nicely.
-
Exactly. $10,000 to the network, $10,000 to the director, and $10,000 to the on-air voice for every utterance will do just nicely.
Nanny-state BS.
-
In any event, these people are grossly underserved and under-researched and are easily the most underrepresented group in the United States. White people have inflicted grievous harm on them and the continued use of offensive imagery is despicable. If our only recognition of them as human beings is through the use of grossly distorted caricatures, simplistic renderings of their beliefs and practices, and naïve petulance over objections to our own ignorance then we only further the contempt we have for them as human beings. Anyone educated in the Jesuit tradition should understand this.
Game, set, match. I eagerly await Chico's rebuttal.
-
Game, set, match. I eagerly await Chico's rebuttal.
Not to be a jag. But if this is the approach that is going to be taken then in all seriousness. Names like the "Fighting Irish"
all need to go as well. Im sure I could dig up a few Irish people that are offended. In fact, probably in my own family, being that they are all of Irish decent. And dont tell me that I am not or should not be offended.
You may as well just put down the Fighting alcoholic Irish with the way they have designed their logo. And no, this is not a joke.
In fact as a Christian, names like the Duke Blue Devils and the Deacon Deamons offend me as well. We should wipe away any type of religious or anti religious imagery from all sports teams.
And what about celebrating a name like Cowboys?
Not saying you cant wipe away the Indian names. But why should they be the only group that is "protected"? This is American, Right? Trying to strive for "All men are created equal" or No?
Game set match, give me a break...
-
Not to be a jag. But if this is the approach that is going to be taken then in all seriousness. Names like the "Fighting Irish"
all need to go as well. Im sure I could dig up a few Irish people that are offended. In fact, probably in my own family, being that they are all of Irish decent. And dont tell me that I am not or should not be offended.
You may as well just put down the Fighting alcoholic Irish with the way they have designed their logo. And no, this is not a joke.
In fact as a Christian, names like the Duke Blue Devils and the Deacon Deamons offend me as well. We should wipe away any type of religious or anti religious imagery from all sports teams.
And what about celebrating a name like Cowboys?
Not saying you cant wipe away the Indian names. But why should they be the only group that is "protected"? This is American, Right? Trying to strive for "All men are created equal" or No?
Game set match, give me a break...
You are equating names that you don't like - Cowboys, Indians, Demons etc. - with racial slurs. We want to get rid of "Redskins" not because it refers to Indians, but because it is a racial slur.
-
You are equating names that you don't like - Cowboys, Indians, Demons etc. - with racial slurs. We want to get rid of "Redskins" not because it refers to Indians, but because it is a racial slur.
Sorry but no. I am referring to Ethnic or Religious "slurs"
You are picking and choosing things you dont like.
-
Nanny-state BS.
Agreed. It is ridiculous to fine someone for using the name Redskins if that is the legal name of the team whose game they are covering.
-
You are equating names that you don't like - Cowboys, Indians, Demons etc. - with racial slurs. We want to get rid of "Redskins" not because it refers to Indians, but because it is a racial slur.
I'm Irish. I'm not drunk (right now). And I don't fight, even when I am drunk.
You tell me.... should I be more or less offended by "Fighting Irish" and its imagery than a Native American is by the Redskins team name and imagery?
-
nm. I'm done with this discussion.
-
Would you still feel that way if it was the Washington N-words? Washington F-ggots? Washington ch!nks?
Just because it is their legal name doesn't mean it is not a slur.
N-words, f-ggots, and ch!nks? That's the best you can do? If you're going to go that far with your example, why leave anything on the table?
Would you still feel that way if it was the Washington Retarded Wetb@ck J!gabo Cun# H@ole Wop G00k K!ike Tw!nk!e Qu&&r Cr@cker C0c0nut B&an&r Porc# M0nkey Sl@nt-Eye G!ppo Hym!e B0hunk Pra!r!e N-Words?
Just because it is their legal name doesn't mean it is not a slur.
There. FIFY. You'll win every online message board argument with a team name like that. You can thank me later.
-
I'm Irish. I'm not drunk (right now). And I don't fight, even when I am drunk.
You tell me.... should I be more or less offended by "Fighting Irish" and its imagery than a Native American is by the Redskins team name and imagery?
What does "drunk" have to do with "Fighting Irish"? And the "fighting" part has to do with bravery of Irish troops at Gettysburg.
Again, many are equating nouns and slurs. Warriors is not a slur - it only became one because of comical, degrading imagery that was used.
-
Not to be a jag. But if this is the approach that is going to be taken then in all seriousness. Names like the "Fighting Irish"
all need to go as well. Im sure I could dig up a few Irish people that are offended. In fact, probably in my own family, being that they are all of Irish decent. And dont tell me that I am not or should not be offended.
You may as well just put down the Fighting alcoholic Irish with the way they have designed their logo. And no, this is not a joke.
In fact as a Christian, names like the Duke Blue Devils and the Deacon Deamons offend me as well. We should wipe away any type of religious or anti religious imagery from all sports teams.
And what about celebrating a name like Cowboys?
Not saying you cant wipe away the Indian names. But why should they be the only group that is "protected"? This is American, Right? Trying to strive for "All men are created equal" or No?
Game set match, give me a break...
None of the nicknames that offend you are BY DEFINITION racial slurs. Redskins is. The one point that Chico has been right about in this discussion is that some people will outraged or upset by something. "Irish" is certainly not a slur. The "Fighting" part describes how hard their teams play on the field - inferring it to mean "alcoholic barroom brawler" is firmly in your "I'm a victim" head. If the Washington football team was known as the "Fighting Redskins" only a few morons would take offense at the "Fighting" part.
Animal rights groups can complain about the Bears or the Panthers. Vegetarians can bitch about the Packers. Fundamentalists can object to Blue Devils or Demon Deacons. American Indians can fight against Braves or Warriors. I say whine all you want - just don't draw a moral equivalency between something you don't like and something that by definition is a racial slur. That's intellectually dishonest.
-
None of the nicknames that offend you are BY DEFINITION racial slurs. Redskins is. The one point that Chico has been right about in this discussion is that some people will outraged or upset by something. "Irish" is certainly not a slur. The "Fighting" part describes how hard their teams play on the field - inferring it to mean "alcoholic barroom brawler" is firmly in your "I'm a victim" head. If the Washington football team was known as the "Fighting Redskins" only a few morons would take offense at the "Fighting" part.
Animal rights groups can complain about the Bears or the Panthers. Vegetarians can bitch about the Packers. Fundamentalists can object to Blue Devils or Demon Deacons. American Indians can fight against Braves or Warriors. I say whine all you want - just don't draw a moral equivalency between something you don't like and something that by definition is a racial slur. That's intellectually dishonest.
Who gives a crap if its a racial slur vs ethnic vs religious slurs?
So racial groups are now the only groups that can be discriminated against?
And sorry, but your opinion on the fighting irish is ludicrous. So you get to decide if any Irish People are offended now? Wow, just wow...
To quote the people from other similar battles. "Alot of this is because of the imagery"
-
Who gives a crap if its a racial slur vs ethnic vs religious slurs?
So racial groups are now the only groups that can be discriminated against?
And sorry, but your opinion on the fighting irish is ludicrous. So you get to decide if any Irish People are offended now? Wow, just wow...
"Blue Devil" and "Demon Deacons" are "religious slurs"? "Irish" or "Fighting Irish" for a football team fighting on the gridiron is an "ethnic slur"? "Cowboys"? Seriously? In what universe? More importantly, in what dictionary? Do you know what a "slur" is?
You want to whine, bitch, moan and play the victim? Knock yourself out. Anyone who can read a dictionary will have a good laugh. Irish People, with a capital P? I'm one of them (75%) and I have no problem with "Fighting Irish".
-
N-words, f-ggots, and ch!nks? That's the best you can do? If you're going to go that far with your example, why leave anything on the table?
There. FIFY. You'll win every online message board argument with a team name like that. You can thank me later.
Not sure what you are getting at. I posted 3 examples of slurs. Redskins is no different.
I deleted it because I'm sick of arguing about it. We are 18 pages in. No one is going to change their mind now.
See ya on another topic.
-
Who gives a crap if its a racial slur vs ethnic vs religious slurs?
So racial groups are now the only groups that can be discriminated against?
And sorry, but your opinion on the fighting irish is ludicrous. So you get to decide if any Irish People are offended now? Wow, just wow...
To quote the people from other similar battles. "Alot of this is because of the imagery"
You're not necessarily wrong, but using that logic, nothing is a slur, and everybody should just get the frack over it.
It's not a bad way to go, until somebody tells your grandmother: "Go back to Mexico, you fracking (insert mexican slur)" and everybody within earshot just shrugs like it's not a big deal.
It is a big deal. Racial slurs aren't appropriate.
Let's all start with that, and then work from there.
-
"Blue Devil" and "Demon Deacons" are "religious slurs"? "Irish" or "Fighting Irish" for a football team fighting on the gridiron is an "ethnic slur"? "Cowboys"? Seriously? In what universe? More importantly, in what dictionary? Do you know what a "slur" is?
You want to whine, bitch, moan and play the victim? Knock yourself out. Anyone who can read a dictionary will have a good laugh. Irish People, with a capital P? I'm one of them (75%) and I have no problem with "Fighting Irish".
LMAO
There are a bunch of Indians that are not offended either.
And neither you nor I get to decide what is offensive to an Ethnic or Racial group. The US Supreme court does.
Directly from the EEOC web site on what can be considered discrimination:
All bases of discrimination that are reasonably implicated by the facts should be included in the charge or complaint (e.g., race, color, national origin, religion, sex, etc.). Failure to include all possible bases may result in a court dismissing a legitimate claim.(29)
You are simply picking race as the only possible grounds for discrimination. Frankly ridiculous.
-
LMAO
You are simply picking race as the only possible grounds for discrimination. Frankly ridiculous.
No, I'm picking slurs as the only possible grounds for offense at nicknames.
So for race/ethnicity that would include Redskins, Micks, Dagos, Ni$$ers, etc.
For gender it would include Bitches or Whores.
For religion it would include Herring Chokers, Papists, Kikes, etc.
There are slurs for every national origin, color, race, sex, religion, etc. They are defined as such.
Irish, Devils, Demons, Cowboys, Packers, Panthers, Braves, etc. may offend the professionally offended like yourself, but most people will laugh at your thin skin and move on - they can tell the difference between a slur and a non slur, and if they can't they can look it up in the dictionary. You have a dictionary, don't you?
-
No, I'm picking slurs as the only possible grounds for offense at nicknames.
So for race/ethnicity that would include Redskins, Micks, Dagos, Ni$$ers, etc.
For gender it would include Bitches or Whores.
For religion it would include Herring Chokers, Papists, Kikes, etc.
There are slurs for every national origin, color, race, sex, religion, etc. They are defined as such.
Irish, Devils, Demons, Cowboys, Packers, Panthers, Braves, etc. may offend the professionally offended like yourself, but most people will laugh at your thin skin and move on - they can tell the difference between a slur and a non slur, and if they can't they can look it up in the dictionary. You have a dictionary, don't you?
Im trying to find where in my post I said slur. I didnt...
I said offensive. Just because we dont consider something a slur does not mean its not offensive. You choose to be "intelectually dishonest" and draw the line at "slurs"
I do not. Many other people do not. You assume alot "but most people will laugh at your thin skin and move on" You literally have no idea that this is true. You can not possibly have any information to back this claim up.
Was Warriors a slur? No, it was not. It was removed due to "imagery". Im just asking for the same treatment for every group.
-
Coach Ellenson,
You have every right to be offended. No one could ever tell you, nor should they ever tell you that you can't be offended. As Americans, hell, as human beings, we have the right to feel whatever way we want about anything.
The jump in logic that I'm seeing in your post is that you believe if Redskins must go, than every name ever that might possibly offend someone must go. If we believed that, than well, we couldn't have mascots. You could name your team the Chairs and someone would find offense with it.
Whether a mascot is offensive or not is not black and white. It is a scale. On one end, you have the very vanilla names like the Chairs. On the other end you have a mascot like the Redskins which by it's very definition is a racial slur of an ethnic minority. Every person has the right to pick where along the scale they "draw their line in the sand." That is to say, they chose at what point they start/stop being offended. This is a rough idea of what the scale looks like to most people
Most Offensive
Racial Slurs of Ethnic Minorities (Redskins)
Broad Terms about Ethnic Minorities (Indians/Braves/Blackhawks)
Specific Groups of Ethnic Minorities (Utes/Chippewas/Aztecs)
Religious Offenders (Demons/Devils/Saints*) *Atheists could be offended by religious names
Ethnic Majority Offenders (Fighting Irish)
Gender Offenders (Kings)
Profession Offenders (Cowboys)
Animal Rights Offenders (Take your pick)
Items (The Chairs)
Least Offensive
I think most people chose to draw their line pretty high on the scale. Is that right? I don't know, but it's the way it is. If you're curious, I draw my line somewhere between the Indians and the Utes.
Your offense to the Fighting Irish and Devils is a valid feeling, but no matter which way you slice it, Redskins is more offensive than either of those. People are going to focus on that first. Once Redskins change, than they will work on changing the Indians/Braves, etc. After they change those....I'm gonna switch sides and start fighting for the right of those schools to keep Utes/Devils/Fighting Irish, etc.
I'm sure you won't like that I just said that Redskins is more offensive than Fighting Irish. Let me pose something to you. You said in one of your early posts that in America "all men are created equal." That is a beautiful goal, it's also a crock of bs. White, straight, Christian, upper class men are born more free than minorities, gays, non-christians, lower class, and women. That is a fact. But because our country believes in equality, it needs to offer certain advantages and protections to those who are disenfranchised because of the identity they were born into. Even with those, we don't get close to equality, but it's a good start. One of those protections? Naming a team after a majority population is widely accepted as ok, naming one after a minority population is not.
Regarding your offense to the Fighting Irish and Devils. It is also important to keep in mind who did the naming. The reason I am offended by Indians/Redskins is because those teams are run by white men, their players are not American Indians, and most of their fans are white men. It is a group of white people taking on the imagery of an ethnic minority. Notre Dame is run by Irishmen, many of their players are Irishmen, and their fanbase contains a ton of Irishmen. As Irishmen, they decided to name their team the Fighting Irish. They are your and mine countrymen. Just like I believe Tribal Colleges such UNC-Pembroke should be allowed to call themselves the Indians (or even the Redskins), I believe an Irish serving institution such as Notre Dame should be allowed to call themselves the Fighting Irish. Same goes for Religious institutions like Depaul calling themselves the Blue Demons. As Christians, they decided to take on that religious moniker. I may agree with you on when public schools or teams take on the Devils as a nickname. I, as a Christian, am not offended by Devils. But if there are those who are, maybe it should be changed.
-
Just took a cruise through here after somewhat intentionally avoiding it for quite some time. I'd like to thank Lenny's Tap, Canned Goods 'n Ammo, and keefe for saving me a buttload of typing. That is all.
-
...You said in one of your early posts that in America "all men are created equal." That is a beautiful goal, it's also a crock of bs. White, straight, Christian, upper class men are born more free than minorities, gays, non-christians, lower class, and women. That is a fact...
You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage, though I have a little trouble discerning level 2 from level 3. This is certainly not a fact. Your advantages in this country are almost entirely financially based, so I'll buy upper class. The other stuff is noise-level.
I certainly don't see how atheists are less free than Christians, in fact they have at least an extra hour of free time on Sunday mornings...
-
You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage, though I have a little trouble discerning level 2 from level 3. This is certainly not a fact. Your advantages in this country are almost entirely financially based, so I'll buy upper class. The other stuff is noise-level.
I certainly don't see how atheists are less free than Christians, in fact they have at least an extra hour of free time on Sunday mornings...
+1
-
And the "fighting" part has to do with bravery of Irish troops at Gettysburg.
Yeah right. Just like the "Redskins" name is a tribute to Native Americans, eh?
I'm pretty sure that those who fought at Gettysburg looked nothing like this:
(http://www.atomicmall.com/cpic/35/36291_1473_notre-dame-fighting-irish-cross-stitch-pattern-look.jpg)
The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person. But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?
Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.
And no... being 8% Cherokee on your mother's side doesn't make you a Native American. If you're not recognized as a member by a tribal council, you're not a Native American.
-
Yeah right. Just like the "Redskins" name is a tribute to Native Americans, eh?
I'm pretty sure that those who fought at Gettysburg looked nothing like this:
(http://www.atomicmall.com/cpic/35/36291_1473_notre-dame-fighting-irish-cross-stitch-pattern-look.jpg)
The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person. But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?
Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.
And no... being 8% Cherokee on your mother's side doesn't make you a Native American. If you're not recognized as a member by a tribal council, you're not a Native American.
I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I don't think I'm okay keeping R-skins our of fear that they will change "fighting irish", and then they will change "Scarlett knights", etc.
I don't want to keep R-skins out of fear of some sort of mascot slippery slope.
Believing R-skins is offensive isn't the same as saying "EVERYTHING IS OFFENSIVE".
-
Yeah right. Just like the "Redskins" name is a tribute to Native Americans, eh?
I'm pretty sure that those who fought at Gettysburg looked nothing like this:
The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person. But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?
Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.
And no... being 8% Cherokee on your mother's side doesn't make you a Native American. If you're not recognized as a member by a tribal council, you're not a Native American.
http://michaelloynd.com/blog/?p=26
I could care less if you believe it or not. It is one of the legends, but there are others.
-
can we just refer to them as the "r-word" from now on?
-
http://michaelloynd.com/blog/?p=26
I could care less if you believe it or not. It is one of the legends, but there are others.
Well, I couldn't care less, especially since it's only "one of the legends."
-
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-ceo-mark-murphy-talks-about-current-nfl-crisis-b99361761z1-277682141.html (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-ceo-mark-murphy-talks-about-current-nfl-crisis-b99361761z1-277682141.html)
That story led off Olbermann yesterday. Good job by the Law School with news like this and their polling system (not sarcastic).
-
You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage, though I have a little trouble discerning level 2 from level 3.
I didn't discern 2 from 3 at first. But I came to the conclusion that if a tribe gave permission, the school financially compensated the tribe, and the school kept their fans under control, using specific tribes as mascots could be beneficial for preserving and celebrating the tribe's culture. You can't meet those three requirements with broad terms like Indians or Braves.
You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage. This is certainly not a fact. Your advantages in this country are almost entirely financially based, so I'll buy upper class. The other stuff is noise-level.
I certainly don't see how atheists are less free than Christians, in fact they have at least an extra hour of free time on Sunday mornings...
Much smarter people than you or I have researched this topic thoroughly. Upper class, white, straight, Christian males have privileges that minorities don't.
People of color are more likely to get harsher sentences for crimes committed and are subjected to racial profiling.
Gay men and women are unable to marry in several states and cannot hold hands in public without risk of ostracizing or even violence.
Atheists live in a country that mentions God in its pledge of allegiance and are considered social pariahs in many parts of the country.
Muslims are subjected to racism on a daily basis due to the war in Iraq and are kept from building places of worship in some parts of the country.
Men get paid more money than their female counterparts despite having the same jobs and same qualifications and women are often raised to believe their only role in life is to be a wife and mother and can be ostracized for seeking at a career.
I just gave two examples for each off the top of my head. I'm not sure how you can say the other stuff is "noise level," especially when one of the examples given is ability to marry. That seems like a fairly significant lack of freedom.
-
The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person. But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?
Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.
Actually I can be. You are right that the Notre Dame logo is more of a caircature than the Redskins logo is. That's not the issue though. The Redskins logo was created by white men for a team of non-American Indians, with a mostly white fan base. The Fighting Irish logo was created by Irishmen, for a team with a lot of Irishmen on it, with a fanbase of mostly Irishmen.
Who does the naming matters. The Irishmen of Notre Dame have the right to display Irishmen in whatever way the please. If other Irishmen don't like, they need to take it up with their fellow Micks (I can say that, I'm Irish ;D). But it is not an issue of discrimination or prejudice, because Irishmen can't discriminate against themselves. Well they can, but it's not racism. White men using the name Redskins, that is an issue of prejudice.
-
Atheists live in a country that mentions God in its pledge of allegiance and are considered social pariahs in many parts of the country.
I am a non-practicing Jew who hasn't believed in God for decades. My wife, who also is non-religious, forbids me from telling anybody that I am an atheist out of fear that we will be ostracized.
Many, many atheists are afraid to come out of the "holy closet." Just about nobody with political aspirations does because he/she would have little chance of getting elected in most parts of the country. Heck, gay folks have as much if not better chance of getting elected than atheists do.
Bill Maher and I disagree on many political things, but I am grateful that he is such an vocal atheist.
-
I didn't discern 2 from 3 at first. But I came to the conclusion that if a tribe gave permission, the school financially compensated the tribe, and the school kept their fans under control, using specific tribes as mascots could be beneficial for preserving and celebrating the tribe's culture. You can't meet those three requirements with broad terms like Indians or Braves.
Much smarter people than you or I have researched this topic thoroughly. Upper class, white, straight, Christian males have privileges that minorities don't.
People of color are more likely to get harsher sentences for crimes committed and are subjected to racial profiling.
Gay men and women are unable to marry in several states and cannot hold hands in public without risk of ostracizing or even violence.
Atheists live in a country that mentions God in its pledge of allegiance and are considered social pariahs in many parts of the country.
Muslims are subjected to racism on a daily basis due to the war in Iraq and are kept from building places of worship in some parts of the country.
Men get paid more money than their female counterparts despite having the same jobs and same qualifications and women are often raised to believe their only role in life is to be a wife and mother and can be ostracized for seeking at a career.
I just gave two examples for each off the top of my head. I'm not sure how you can say the other stuff is "noise level," especially when one of the examples given is ability to marry. That seems like a fairly significant lack of freedom.
You speak in absolutes, thus your comments are flawed.
Don't stereotype....both ways.
I know a Canadian Indian who wants to be referred to as a native...counter to Keefe's "point".
If you read the history of American Indian culture, you will learn that many tribes practiced the same brutal tactic towards other tribes that they lament about from European settlers.
Read how the Erie Indians were wiped out...to extinction by the Iriquois.
We should strive to be better. All of us.
-
You speak in absolutes, thus your comments are flawed.
I'm honestly confused. Where did I speak in absolutes? I qualified everything with "in many cases" or "in several states" or "in some parts of the country." The only absolutes I posted were honest to goodness facts. If you would like, I can get citations.
-
The Fighting Irish logo was created by Irishmen, for a team with a lot of Irishmen on it, with a fanbase of mostly Irishmen.
Who does the naming matters. The Irishmen of Notre Dame have the right to display Irishmen in whatever way the please. If other Irishmen don't like, they need to take it up with their fellow Micks (I can say that, I'm Irish Grin). But it is not an issue of discrimination or prejudice, because Irishmen can't discriminate against themselves. Well they can, but it's not racism. White men using the name Redskins, that is an issue of prejudice.
Show me your stats of all these Irishmen at ND. As a person from Ireland I would have no problem with Notre Dame being called Notre Dame Irish. I want the racist midget leprechaun gone. I also want Fighting out of the name. Notre Dame Irish with a normal size Irishman leading a St. Patrick's Day parade with an Adrian Peterson type of shillelagh being the mascot would be perfect.
I guess I wasn't that tired. They were named after the 3rd President of the University who fought in the Irish Brigade in the Civil War at Gettysburg. Notre Dame Irish Brigade. No more midget leprechauns. Racist that we are all midgets since they do not exist.
On a side note I am 6'7'' and cannot grow a beard. More racism.
By the way, here in MN they have Hot Dago sandwiches. Italians are not up in arms. Just ask Real Chili 83 JayBee and a couple of others.
-
I know a Canadian Indian who wants to be referred to as a native...counter to Keefe's "point".
My very first point was that there is no real consensus on much within Indian Country; hence my comparison with Asian consensus.
But the fact is that national American Indian advocacy, representative, and policy entities use the terms as I indicated. And sophisticated, articulate Indian leaders use Indian Country in the general, Tribes in particular, and the name of the tribe in the specific. I would suggest that one Canadian native does not a consensus make though he is most assuredly entitled to ask that he be referred to in whatever manner he wishes.
-
I really find this extremely offensive, but many will defend their right to do this including me. Though I am offended I will not force them to change.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4AF8124E-3048-5C12-006558D2C4DED716
-
Actually I can be. You are right that the Notre Dame logo is more of a caircature than the Redskins logo is. That's not the issue though. The Redskins logo was created by white men for a team of non-American Indians, with a mostly white fan base. The Fighting Irish logo was created by Irishmen, for a team with a lot of Irishmen on it, with a fanbase of mostly Irishmen.
Who does the naming matters. The Irishmen of Notre Dame have the right to display Irishmen in whatever way the please. If other Irishmen don't like, they need to take it up with their fellow Micks (I can say that, I'm Irish ;D). But it is not an issue of discrimination or prejudice, because Irishmen can't discriminate against themselves. Well they can, but it's not racism. White men using the name Redskins, that is an issue of prejudice.
Got it. 'Redskins' used by white men: bad. 'Redskins' used by any other race/gender combination that might be offended by 'redskins': acceptable.
-
I really find this extremely offensive, but many will defend their right to do this including me. Though I am offended I will not force them to change.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4AF8124E-3048-5C12-006558D2C4DED716
Poor white people.
-
Got it. 'Redskins' used by white men: bad. 'Redskins' used by any other race/gender combination that might be offended by 'redskins': acceptable.
Almost. Redskins used by American Indians: acceptable. Redskins used by anyone else (be the man, woman, white, black, orange, gay, straight): unacceptable
-
Show me your stats of all these Irishmen at ND.
In order for a university to qualify as a "_______" serving institution, at least 18% of their student population most identify as that specific ethnicity. Notre Dame was labeled an Irish Serving institution back in the days when Irish was still considered a minority group. They no longer track this because Irishmen are now considered a majority group. I can't give you numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my life savings that at least 18% of Notre Dame students and fans are of Irish heritage.
As a person from Ireland I would have no problem with Notre Dame being called Notre Dame Irish. I want the racist midget leprechaun gone. I also want Fighting out of the name. Notre Dame Irish with a normal size Irishman leading a St. Patrick's Day parade with an Adrian Peterson type of shillelagh being the mascot would be perfect.
I guess I wasn't that tired. They were named after the 3rd President of the University who fought in the Irish Brigade in the Civil War at Gettysburg. Notre Dame Irish Brigade. No more midget leprechauns. Racist that we are all midgets since they do not exist.
On a side note I am 6'7'' and cannot grow a beard. More racism.
You have every right to be offended. Take it up with our fellow Irishmen at Notre Dame. But let me pose a question to you, are you really offended by the Fighting Irish? Or are using this as a reason to justify keeping Redskins? Because if you truly are opposed to the Fighting Irish, then you should be appalled by the Redskins.
By the way, here in MN they have Hot Dago sandwiches. Italians are not up in arms. Just ask Real Chili 83 JayBee and a couple of others.
Again, just because one group is okay being discriminated against (which your observation that "Italians aren't up in arms" is not necessarily proof of), doesn't justify discriminating against another group. Also, I'm less worried about one city that has a discriminatory sandwich, than a professional sports team with a racist nickname that has national exposure. Next, I'm not as bothered by racism against a Caucasian ethnicity, they are a privileged class. They don't need the same level of support as disenfranchised ethnicity such as American Indians do. Finally, is the place selling the Hot Dago sandwich Italian? If they are, it is not an act of racism. Italians can call themselves Dagos all they want. My girlfriend is a Long Island Italian and refers to her family as "Fing Dagos" all the time.
-
Almost. Redskins used by American Indians: acceptable. Redskins used by anyone else (be the man, woman, white, black, orange, gay, straight): unacceptable
It's really quite simple.
As a person of Jewish descent, I feel I have carte blanche to make Jewish jokes, swear in Yiddish, call fellow Jews members of "the Tribe," even use words like "kike" when messing around. But I wouldn't take the same liberties when talking about Christians or Muslims, nor would I expect Christians and Muslims to make fun of Jews.
I mean, think about the way many blacks - especially those in pop culture - use the n-word when talking to each other ... but they sure as hell don't want those of us who aren't black using that word.
So yes, to many Indians, there is quite a difference between an Indian using "redskin" and you or I using it.
I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.
-
I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.
In my experience, it is a combination of two reasons.
1) People get tunnel vision on the idea of equality. It has to be ok for everyone, otherwise it's not ok. If I can't do it, no one can.
2) People get defensive because they make those jokes. They use those words. And if they admit the above rule...that means that they have committed racist acts. As a Christian, I will admit to telling jokes about Jewish stereotypes. It's not right, it's racist. I recognize that I have committed a racist act and try to develop from there. Most people, especially people in privileged groups, are terrified of being called racist. Rather than accept that they may have done or said something racist, they get defensive, and try to blame the minority group or justify what they said. We are all human, we all have racist tendencies. It takes courage to own that. It is easier to blindly defend and claim that they don't exist.
-
What I think it is, is that people want to pick and choose what they think is offensive based on their own opinions. Heck we had a person on this board rank "what most people find offensive" :o
And that just because a group is not considered a minority they should not be offended. They also understand that if the standards that they want to pick and choose for Nicknames etc were universally applied it would weaken their case. In other words, they want to just pick and choose the names they dont like, in fear of the fact it is unlikely they would get their way if they were forced to apply this stuff across the board. Look, I am not saying we should not do away with Redskins, but what I am saying is that we need to complete the job everywhere. Not just for Indians. It seems to me we are just committing 2 wrongs in an attempt to make right.
Anyway, I am done with this topic because nobody has convinced me otherwise on the strength of removing the Redskins argument one bit, while ignoring the fact that other Mascots and Nicknames that have offensive Imagery need to be removed as well. In fact, most of those arguments have bolstered my opinion to the contrary.
I can say I do respect your opinions and that I Love each and every one of you for being Marquette fans! Go Warriors!, or Marquette if you must :-)
-
It's really quite simple.
As a person of Jewish descent, I feel I have carte blanche to make Jewish jokes, swear in Yiddish, call fellow Jews members of "the Tribe," even use words like "kike" when messing around. But I wouldn't take the same liberties when talking about Christians or Muslims, nor would I expect Christians and Muslims to make fun of Jews.
I mean, think about the way many blacks - especially those in pop culture - use the n-word when talking to each other ... but they sure as hell don't want those of us who aren't black using that word.
So yes, to many Indians, there is quite a difference between an Indian using "redskin" and you or I using it.
I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.
It's quite easy to comprehend, actually... it's ok to use a slur if the person you're slurring isn't offended by your slur. What's difficult to comprehend is, applying your logic, why you insist Native Americans are taking offense at a slur that isn't being directed at them.
But let me pose a question to you, are you really offended by the Redskins? Or are you feigning outrage just to make life difficult for Dan Snyder? Because if you truly are opposed to the Redskins, then you should be appalled by the Fighting Irish.
-
What I think it is, is that people want to pick and choose what they think is offensive based on their own opinions. Heck we had a person on this board rank "what most people find offensive" :o
And that just because a group is not considered a minority they should not be offended. They also understand that if the standards that they want to pick and choose for Nicknames etc were universally applied it would weaken their case. In other words, they want to just pick and choose the names they dont like, in fear of the fact it is unlikely they would get their way if they were forced to apply this stuff across the board. Look, I am not saying we should not do away with Redskins, but what I am saying is that we need to complete the job everywhere. Not just for Indians. It seems to me we are just committing 2 wrongs in an attempt to make right.
Anyway, I am done with this topic because nobody has convinced me otherwise on the strength of removing the Redskins argument one bit, while ignoring the fact that other Mascots and Nicknames that have offensive Imagery need to be removed as well. In fact, most of those arguments have bolstered my opinion to the contrary.
I can say I do respect your opinions and that I Love each and every one of you for being Marquette fans! Go Warriors!, or Marquette if you must :-)
Your logic is technically correct, so I can't really blow holes in it, but in the real world, we make these kinds of compromises all of the time.
Speeding 5mph over? Technically illegal, but rarely enforced.
Fightin' Irish is probably not appropriate. It would by hypocritical of me to say that it is.
BUT, just because I'm not protesting at Notre Dame doesn't mean that R-Skins should stay.
I have a hard time coming up for any redeeming quality of R-skins.
-
It's quite easy to comprehend, actually... it's ok to use a slur if the person you're slurring isn't offended by your slur. What's difficult to comprehend is, applying your logic, why you insist Native Americans are taking offense at a slur that isn't being directed at them.
But let me pose a question to you, are you really offended by the Redskins? Or are you feigning outrage just to make life difficult for Dan Snyder? Because if you truly are opposed to the Redskins, then you should be appalled by the Fighting Irish.
How do you know they aren't offended by the slur? Maybe they are and won't speak up for fear of being ostracized. And in this, case many of them are offended!
And yes, I am outraged by the Redskins mascot. Because it is a case of a privileged group using a slur for minority group as a mascot.
And no, I am not outraged by the Fighting Irish. Because it is a case of a privileged group using potentially offensive imagery for that same privileged group as a mascot.
-
I have a hard time coming up for any redeeming quality of R-skins.
This is an interesting point. Whenever I have this discussion, no matter the forum, the pro-redskin side is very good at coming up with reasons why the name shouldn't change. But they are very bad at coming up with reason why the name should stay. What benefits are there to keeping the Redskins as a mascot? I understand all the reasons why it would be bad to change it (even if I don't agree) but what are the benefits of it staying?
-
It's quite easy to comprehend, actually... it's ok to use a slur if the person you're slurring isn't offended by your slur. What's difficult to comprehend is, applying your logic, why you insist Native Americans are taking offense at a slur that isn't being directed at them.
But let me pose a question to you, are you really offended by the Redskins? Or are you feigning outrage just to make life difficult for Dan Snyder? Because if you truly are opposed to the Redskins, then you should be appalled by the Fighting Irish.
Yes, just as I was offended when a member of my softball team actually thought it was OK to use the n-word in front of me recently, I am offended by "redskins" and by the fact that a race of humans can be used as a mascot for the pleasure of non-Indians.
I think you know that the Fighting Irish argument is a straw man, but I'll play along. I am not appalled by the Fighting Irish because Irish people chose that for themselves, though I certainly would think they would be offended by the dorky looking ND symbol and I certainly would agree with getting rid of it.
Also - few, if any, Irish people mind being called "Irish."
Try this: Go to a group of Irish people and say, "Hey, it's great to be among Irish folks!" And see what kind of response you get. I'm guessing it would be jovial. Now go to a group of American Indians and say, "Hey, it's great to be among redskins!" And see what kind of response you get. If you really don't think "redskins" is an offensive slur, you shouldn't be the least bit timid about going into an Indian casino and using the term freely.
As for this part of your argument - What's difficult to comprehend is, applying your logic, why you insist Native Americans are taking offense at a slur that isn't being directed at them - let's say that polls mentioned earlier in this comment stream are right and "only" 30% of American Indians consider the Redskins mascot/nickname to be an offensive slur. I find it hard to believe the percentage is that low, but let's say it's true. Is it really OK to offend 30% of a race/religion/nationality for the pleasure of football fans?
I guess you would say it is. I happen to think we can do better as a society.
You certainly aren't going to convince me I'm wrong, and history eventually will prove me right. But I won't convince you, either. I guess that's why we can't get anything done in this country.
Jewboy out.
-
I wouldn't take the same liberties when talking about Christians or Muslims, nor would I expect Christians and Muslims to make fun of Jews.
Then how in God's name do you explain this...
(http://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Barjoke.jpg/300px-Barjoke.jpg)
-
As for this part of your argument - What's difficult to comprehend is, applying your logic, why you insist Native Americans are taking offense at a slur that isn't being directed at them - let's say that polls mentioned earlier in this comment stream are right and "only" 30% of American Indians consider the Redskins mascot/nickname to be an offensive slur. I find it hard to believe the percentage is that low, but let's say it's true. Is it really OK to offend 30% of a race/religion/nationality for the pleasure of football fans?
Nobody's calling Native Americans redskins, they're calling the football players Redskins. But there are no Native Americans who are on the Redskins football team, so the only people getting offended here are people who are looking for an opportunity to be offended, no?
Are you offended by the statistical possibility that there are probably a bunch of skinheads playing video games or cards in a basement somewhere in America at this very moment on a Friday evening saying Jew-this, and n-word-that? If so, why? Do you really care about what a bunch of low-life bottom feeders in Hillbilly country are spewing from their talk holes?
Just like how Native Americans really need to stop worrying about what the moronic Washington football fans think, say and do.
-
You certainly aren't going to convince me I'm wrong, and history eventually will prove me right. But I won't convince you, either. I guess that's why we can't get anything done in this country.
Actually, you have me damn close to thinking my own position is wrong. After all, when someone uses 2,000 words to rationalize their position when only 5 words should be necessary, that's basically an admission by that person that he/she knows they're full of BS.
I've always been of the mindset that the Redskins nickname needs to go because it's a racial slur, period. I mean, hey... that's pretty dang self-explanatory, isn't it? I didn't think there was much need for any further argument, but the fact that the elitist anti-Redskins crowd insists on coming up with these extremely complex, pompous, and twisted arguments to make their point has me thinking that maybe my position is wrong.
"Redskins is a racial slur." Five words. If I'm wrong, so are you.
-
Nm
-
Just like how Native Americans really need to stop worrying about what the moronic Washington football fans think, say and do.
"Hey American Indians, if you feel discriminated against or offended, you should just get over it."
Do you really believe that?
-
I've always been of the mindset that the Redskins nickname needs to go because it's a racial slur, period. I mean, hey... that's pretty dang self-explanatory, isn't it? I didn't think there was much need for any further argument, but the fact that the elitist anti-Redskins crowd insists on coming up with these extremely complex, pompous, and twisted arguments to make their point has me thinking that maybe my position is wrong.
"Redskins is a racial slur." Five words. If I'm wrong, so are you.
I agree. It is pretty self explanatory. But than the privileged majority fights back with lame duck excuses like "well what about the Fighting Irish?" or "they should feel honored by the name" or "they call themselves that, so why can't we?" or "they should just get over it." Then we have to go into more detail about why all those excuses don't make sense or are invalid. If everyone just accepted your 5 word sentence, than we could move on with this issue.
-
Actually, you have me damn close to thinking my own position is wrong. After all, when someone uses 2,000 words to rationalize their position when only 5 words should be necessary, that's basically an admission by that person that he/she knows they're full of BS.
I've always been of the mindset that the Redskins nickname needs to go because it's a racial slur, period. I mean, hey... that's pretty dang self-explanatory, isn't it? I didn't think there was much need for any further argument, but the fact that the elitist anti-Redskins crowd insists on coming up with these extremely complex, pompous, and twisted arguments to make their point has me thinking that maybe my position is wrong.
"Redskins is a racial slur." Five words. If I'm wrong, so are you.
You're right. Those 5 words say it all. They make the polls meaningless, render discussions of non slurs (fighting Irish, Braves, Cowboys) beside the point and extraneous. They also make Tamu's sociology lessons unnecessary.
Those 5 words trump everything, the rest is just people wanting to hear themselves pontificate.
-
the rest is just people wanting to hear themselves pontificate.
Are you discriminating against us non-Catholics??
-
Actually, you have me damn close to thinking my own position is wrong. After all, when someone uses 2,000 words to rationalize their position when only 5 words should be necessary, that's basically an admission by that person that he/she knows they're full of BS.
I've always been of the mindset that the Redskins nickname needs to go because it's a racial slur, period. I mean, hey... that's pretty dang self-explanatory, isn't it? I didn't think there was much need for any further argument, but the fact that the elitist anti-Redskins crowd insists on coming up with these extremely complex, pompous, and twisted arguments to make their point has me thinking that maybe my position is wrong.
"Redskins is a racial slur." Five words. If I'm wrong, so are you.
For some reason I thought we were on different sides of this issue. Apparently, we're not. Congratulations!
-
I have a hard time coming up for any redeeming quality of R-skins.
Despite the fact that Native Americans themselves have given plenty...you just wish to ignore every one of them. Plenty of video vignettes in this thread as examples.
-
They also make Tamu's sociology lessons unnecessary.
The very fact that you think they are unnecessary is what makes them necessary. We all have growth and development to do in this area. And given that this is a thread about a social justice issue, on a board filled with alumni of a Jesuit institution, this seems to be a perfect venue to discuss some of these important topics. If the "sociology lessons" offend you, I apologize. But we can at least agree that "Redskins is a racial slur" should be enough.
-
1967.....anyone want to guess? For you dictionary buffs....that is a clue.
-
Despite the fact that Native Americans themselves have given plenty...you just wish to ignore every one of them. Plenty of video vignettes in this thread as examples.
This is a fair point that I haven't previously acknowledged. I would challenge that there are just as many, if not more videos of American Indians listing reasons against it. But it's not fair to say that no redeemable qualities have been presented.
-
This is a fair point that I haven't previously acknowledged. I would challenge that there are just as many, if not more videos of American Indians listing reasons against it. But it's not fair to say that no redeemable qualities have been presented.
If this were true, it would overwhelmingly show up in polling as well, but it doesn't. It itsn't a slur to most, to many it is a term of honor, to SOME it is a slur.
1967......interesting date as it relates to Redskins.....has anyone figured it out yet?
-
The very fact that you think they are unnecessary is what makes them necessary.
Huh?
-
If the "sociology lessons" offend you, I apologize. But we can at least agree that "Redskins is a racial slur" should be enough.
They don't offend me. I actually find them interesting and informative. Some of your conclusions I agree with, others not so much. There just superfluous to the "redskin" discussion - Benny's 5 little words are all that's needed.
-
We are working with American Indian groups at the national advocacy and tribal levels. They categorically do not like the term, "Native American." The proper nomenclature is "Indian Country" for the macro or collective and Tribe/Tribal for the specific.
You're referencing the association hierarchy, not the rank and file. The AMA supports a certain healthcare plan a few years ago despite actual doctors overwhelmingly rejecting it. 77% of doctors say the AMA doesn't support their views. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/07/313211/77-percent-of-doctors-say-ama-does-not-represent-their-views/ Unions may support certain candidates so they run around and say the AFL-CIO supports X person, when the rank and file may not. So on and so forth.
Let's not confuse what some elites believe in their tower vs the every day folk. OFTEN, regardless of what segment or issue, they don't correlate to reality on the ground.
-
You do not know what Godwin's Law is, but go have fun supporting the use of a racial epithet.
I know exactly what it is, just as I know exactly how 2.0 came about as somewhat of a humorous addendum. It fits perfectly in this case.
-
Let's be honest here.
That would be a first for you.
As a shareholder of Fed Ex and many other companies, I have NEVER been asked about my ethnicity, gender, income level, etc, etc when purchasing stocks now would it be legal to do so. You have the means or you don't.
I know it's cute for you to paint broad pictures as you often do, but the reality is that the shareholders of Fed Ex and many other companies are diverse just as the population is. Are there more white shareholders than any other segment? Yes, there is also more white people than any other segment in this country. Last data point I found, 69% of African Americans with income levels above $50K owned stocks in this country. Whites were about 77%. The study I read is that of belief system in equities vs less risk adverse strategies as the underlying reason.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of Asians, African Americans, Caucasians, etc, etc, that own stocks, including Fed Ex stock.
Personally, I can't buy UPS because of their slogan "what can Brown do for you?" I find it racist...why are they assuming something brown is always subservient and has to do something for someone else. The gall of some companies.
-
That said, history will judge you as dead wrong on this issue.
I love this. History will be the judge....you do realize that history is what people want to make of it. Go study the American Revolution in the UK, it is a lot different history than what we were taught about the same subject here in the States. History changes all the time, on the very same subject, depending on who is writing it and often what the agenda is behind it. I say that as a History major (one of three at MU). History is written by the victors, not necessarily by those telling an accurate account of things. Now, before Lenny or others go half cocked, that isn't some conspiracy theory I'm throwing out there. History is always anchored in truths, the question comes down to the point of view of those truths. It isn't 2 + 2 = 4 or Newton's laws, it is much different than that.
As far as the what that judgment will be, where does that end? Out here we have a push by transgender students to be able to play sports for either (or both) of the boys and girls high school teams. Depending on what side of the issue you are on, you may view things totally different. Is the "right thing to do" to let a born male that wants to become a woman play on the girls teams, even though he is still a male? Is that the right thing to do? Is that what history will be judging? What about the girls that don't want a male on their team? What about the Native Americans that find Redskins as term of honor? What about the Native Americans that fear the continued removal of Native American terms pulls the rest of society that much further away from their existence entirely?
So you can pontificate all you want about history and who will be judging it, etc. It's an opinion, nothing more.
-
I think the same people who came up with Chief Wahoo, Chief Knockahoma and Willie Wampum.
To suggest there is anything resembling a consensus within Indian Country would be to say there is a consensus among Asian states. All I know is that in all correspondence and formal documents the Indian organizations and tribes use the terms Indian Country and Tribes/Tribal. I have gotten to know the Presidentially-appointed director of a national health related entity, a Lakota Sioux who has an MD and MPH from Harvard, and she stated plainly that "Native American" is meaningless to Indians and is yet another convention concocted by Caucasians to attempt to categorize or explain Indians.
In any event, these people are grossly underserved and under-researched and are easily the most underrepresented group in the United States. White people have inflicted grievous harm on them and the continued use of offensive imagery is despicable. If our only recognition of them as human beings is through the use of grossly distorted caricatures, simplistic renderings of their beliefs and practices, and naïve petulance over objections to our own ignorance then we only further the contempt we have for them as human beings. Anyone educated in the Jesuit tradition should understand this.
We agree, which is why if anyone bothered to spend a total of 8 minutes of their lives watching some of the videos I posted, those Native Americans would agree with this...I sense that those against the name spent exactly 0.0 seconds watching them. As those men and women stated, we have much much much bigger issues than a nickname of a football team. Of course, these same men and women also state that this is one of the reasons why they want to KEEP THE NAME, because their people have been under served and left behind, it is one area where they believe the general populace knows they exist.
The irony isn't lost on me.
-
To say nothin' of the implied hops, which is another thin' Brown can do for you, aina?
-
What I think it is, is that people want to pick and choose what they think is offensive based on their own opinions. Heck we had a person on this board rank "what most people find offensive" :o
And that just because a group is not considered a minority they should not be offended. They also understand that if the standards that they want to pick and choose for Nicknames etc were universally applied it would weaken their case. In other words, they want to just pick and choose the names they dont like, in fear of the fact it is unlikely they would get their way if they were forced to apply this stuff across the board. Look, I am not saying we should not do away with Redskins, but what I am saying is that we need to complete the job everywhere. Not just for Indians. It seems to me we are just committing 2 wrongs in an attempt to make right.
Anyway, I am done with this topic because nobody has convinced me otherwise on the strength of removing the Redskins argument one bit, while ignoring the fact that other Mascots and Nicknames that have offensive Imagery need to be removed as well. In fact, most of those arguments have bolstered my opinion to the contrary.
I can say I do respect your opinions and that I Love each and every one of you for being Marquette fans! Go Warriors!, or Marquette if you must :-)
Amen....and what really throws them for a curveball is when you have a bunch of people in the supposed "offended" group that are fine with the name. They're then either stupid, uninformed, or ignorant, but the good news is we have some intellectually superior folks that will think for them...set them straight. It's awesome.
-
How do you know they aren't offended by the slur? Maybe they are and won't speak up for fear of being ostracized. And in this, case many of them are offended!
And yes, I am outraged by the Redskins mascot. Because it is a case of a privileged group using a slur for minority group as a mascot.
And no, I am not outraged by the Fighting Irish. Because it is a case of a privileged group using potentially offensive imagery for that same privileged group as a mascot.
BECAUSE MANY SAY SO. BECAUSE MANY SAY IT ISN'T A SLUR. BECAUSE MANY SAY IT IS A TERM OF HONOR.
YIKES!!!!
Just because SOME say it is a slur, doesn't mean all, or the majority or even a huge minority. That is the entire point!!
-
People can SAY whatever they want. They can SAY 2+2 = 5. They can SAY words don't mean what they do mean. Free country. There is no law against being factually, verifiably, unequivocally wrong. Until the definition of the word changes, that's what you are. Arguing for 10,000 pages won't change that.
-
People can SAY whatever they want. They can SAY 2+2 = 5. They can SAY words don't mean what they do mean. Free country. There is no law against being factually, verifiably, unequivocally wrong. Until the definition of the word changes, that's what you are. Arguing for 10,000 pages won't change that.
This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong. When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true. Some do, many don't. To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.
Meanwhile....1967.....Redskins.....interesting. Anyone figure it out yet? Dictionary help.
-
This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong. When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true. Some do, many don't. To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.
Meanwhile....1967.....Redskins.....interesting. Anyone figure it out yet? Dictionary help.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judges-rule-for-dictionary-over-redskins-feeble-attempts-to-defend-team-name/2014/06/18/9b29765e-f72f-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
-
This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong. When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true. Some do, many don't. To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.
l
Again, people can SAY whatever. They can SAY, for example, that Braves or Warriors is a slur but they're demonstrably wrong. Or they can SAY Redskin isn't one and be demonstrably wrong also. Easy if you stick to the salient fact - what a word actually means. I'm sorry the word's definition isn't what you want it to be but it is what it is. That's reality. That's the fact. It's a slur. Period. SAYING or FEELING it isn't won't change that.
-
We agree, which is why if anyone bothered to spend a total of 8 minutes of their lives watching some of the videos I posted, those Native Americans would agree with this...I sense that those against the name spent exactly 0.0 seconds watching them. As those men and women stated, we have much much much bigger issues than a nickname of a football team. Of course, these same men and women also state that this is one of the reasons why they want to KEEP THE NAME, because their people have been under served and left behind, it is one area where they believe the general populace knows they exist.
The irony isn't lost on me.
Well, I am working with American Indians who are opinion and thought leaders at the tribal and national levels and they are offended by the entire Redskins taxonomy and imagery. It is nothing more than an irritant to them because in the grand scheme of things it is trivial when compared with the real issues crushing their people. But make no mistake: these thoughtful, intelligent, sophisticated men and women see the whole Redskins narrative as a continuation of 500 years of marginalization.
-
Well, I am working with American Indians who are opinion and thought leaders at the tribal and national levels and they are offended by the entire Redskins taxonomy and imagery. It is nothing more than an irritant to them because in the grand scheme of things it is trivial when compared with the real issues crushing their people. But make no mistake: these thoughtful, intelligent, sophisticated men and women see the whole Redskins narrative as a continuation of 500 years of marginalization.
I have no doubt that some do, but just as I mentioned the AMA example....tribal leaders and certainly associations don't speak for everyone, including their own people. Just as leaders of my country don't speak for all of us either when it comes to matters of opinion.
1967.....an interesting year for the term Redskins.....interesting indeed.
-
This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong. When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true. Some do, many don't. To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.
Meanwhile....1967.....Redskins.....interesting. Anyone figure it out yet? Dictionary help.
Here is the dissenting judges take.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/06/18/Trademark-Dissent-Blasts-Non-Native-American-Experts-Claiming-Redskins-Disparaging
-
Here is the dissenting judges take.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/06/18/Trademark-Dissent-Blasts-Non-Native-American-Experts-Claiming-Redskins-Disparaging
Brandx's head is going to explode because of the source....of course the important thing to note is NOT ONE MEDIA outlet presented the other point of view except this one, which is about as surprising as water being wet.
Part of my 1967 question is in this story, though they label it as 1966....Huff Post said 1967....close enough. For a word that supposedly is a slur and has been since day one (according to so many "experts") it is strange that it wasn't until 1967 (or '66) that a dictionary ever published that as a definition. Weird. Odd.
The next dictionary to do so was 1981. Yet the Redskins have had this name for their football team since the 1930's.
Interesting.
-
Brandx's head is going to explode because of the source....of course the important thing to note is NOT ONE MEDIA outlet presented the other point of view except this one, which is about as surprising as water being wet.
Part of my 1967 question is in this story, though they label it as 1966....Huff Post said 1967....close enough. For a word that supposedly is a slur and has been since day one (according to so many "experts") it is strange that it wasn't until 1967 (or '66) that a dictionary ever published that as a definition. Weird. Odd.
The next dictionary to do so was 1981. Yet the Redskins have had this name for their football team since the 1930's.
Interesting.
Pekin High School in Pekin Illinois (because of the similarity in name to Peking, China) adopted as a nickname "Chinks" in the 1930s. Their mascots were a male and female student dressed in traditional Chinese attire. By 1980 the wacky left wing farming community in central Illinois changed the nickname to the Dragons. If only they had remained steadfast in continuing to honor Chinese Americans, Chinks and non Chinks alike would be the better for it. LOL. Your defense of Redskins is no less despicable or racist than a defense of the "Chinks" would be. C'mon man - you're better than that.
-
Brandx's head is going to explode because of the source....of course the important thing to note is NOT ONE MEDIA outlet presented the other point of view except this one, which is about as surprising as water being wet.
Part of my 1967 question is in this story, though they label it as 1966....Huff Post said 1967....close enough. For a word that supposedly is a slur and has been since day one (according to so many "experts") it is strange that it wasn't until 1967 (or '66) that a dictionary ever published that as a definition. Weird. Odd.
The next dictionary to do so was 1981. Yet the Redskins have had this name for their football team since the 1930's.
Interesting.
Who cares? The meaning of words change over time. "Gay" for example. "Negro" was once considered an acceptable term. Now it isn't.
By your own posting, you just showed that "Redskin" has been considered a slur for almost 50 years.
-
Pekin High School in Pekin Illinois (because of the similarity in name to Peking, China) adopted as a nickname "Chinks" in the 1930s. Their mascots were a male and female student dressed in traditional Chinese attire. By 1980 the wacky left wing farming community in central Illinois changed the nickname to the Dragons. If only they had remained steadfast in continuing to honor Chinese Americans, Chinks and non Chinks alike would be the better for it. LOL. Your defense of Redskins is no less despicable or racist than a defense of the "Chinks" would be. C'mon man - you're better than that.
Whoa, you forgot a critical fact, buster.
The Freport Pretzels too are under attack. Many claim their roots are based racism. As a result, many grain based snack foods are feeling second class. The privileged, potato based snack foods look the other way.
The horror, the horror.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judges-rule-for-dictionary-over-redskins-feeble-attempts-to-defend-team-name/2014/06/18/9b29765e-f72f-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
You're missing the point. They have had the name since the 1930's, the Smithsonian's lead linguist has stated numerous times the origins of the word are not in any way, shape or form a slur, racist, etc. It wasn't until the late 1960's that one dictionary decided to add that definition. Then, 15 years later another one did.
It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway? NONE.
That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works.
-
It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway? NONE.
That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works.
Has anyone here suggested that the name was CHOSEN for racist reasons? Does it matter? I'm sure that Pekin didn't choose "Chinks" for a racist reason back in the 1930s either. It's still wrong in 2014.
And for the record, you're the one moving the goal posts. Again. Five words: Redskin IS a racial slur. Doesn't matter what the good people in Washington (or Pekin - remember the Chinks) were thinking in the 1930s. Today, right now, at this moment, Redskin is a racial slur. That is a fact that is undisputable. Arguing that it wasn't in 1930, 1966, or 1983 is immaterial. Arguing whether Daniel Snyder has the right to call them that (he most certainly does) is immaterial. Everything is immaterial except this:
Question: How do you feel about using racial slurs as nicknames for our sport's teams?
1. I favor it.
2. I oppose it.
3. I don't care.
Simple, no?
-
You're missing the point. They have had the name since the 1930's, the Smithsonian's lead linguist has stated numerous times the origins of the word are not in any way, shape or form a slur, racist, etc. It wasn't until the late 1960's that one dictionary decided to add that definition. Then, 15 years later another one did.
It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway? NONE.
That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works.
Zeitgeist does not excuse effect. I am certain the US Federal Government and Life Magazine would regret publishing today what they did in the 1940's:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTw3Sro2TgiszCmikXsIWcuzklVOfAc5EDxj5myR8eVV7Ax-r8t)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRpkZLvmxKE5kCbDdgMAIh3NB35hwo5SMnFb08F1soOJXdbiE4)
(http://americanwiki.pbworks.com/f/Life%20Magazine%20Cartoon%20Watermelon.jpg)
-
The evolution of language and culture isn't some sort of evil liberal agenda.
It's been going on forever:
The Simpsons used to be considered cutting edge, or even offensive. George Bush famously remarked about it.
Today, no President would backhand the Simpsons.
In 1930's, it was okay to use certain words and language.
Today, it's not really acceptable.
I don't think this is that complicated.
-
Zeitgeist does not excuse effect. I am certain the US Federal Government and Life Magazine would regret publishing today what they did in the 1940's:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTw3Sro2TgiszCmikXsIWcuzklVOfAc5EDxj5myR8eVV7Ax-r8t)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRpkZLvmxKE5kCbDdgMAIh3NB35hwo5SMnFb08F1soOJXdbiE4)
(http://americanwiki.pbworks.com/f/Life%20Magazine%20Cartoon%20Watermelon.jpg)
Careful, Crash - don't tread on Chico's "Good Old Days".
-
http://deadspin.com/is-the-redskins-vip-indian-defender-a-fake-indian-1642991295?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
-
You're missing the point. They have had the name since the 1930's, the Smithsonian's lead linguist has stated numerous times the origins of the word are not in any way, shape or form a slur, racist, etc. It wasn't until the late 1960's that one dictionary decided to add that definition. Then, 15 years later another one did.
It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway? NONE.
That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works.
Chico's .... whether the word originally was intended as a slur, or why the name was chosen, is pretty much irrelevant. There are many modern day slurs with innocent origins. That makes their use no more acceptable.
A simple test ... would you approach a Native American and refer to him/her as "redskin?"
A simple
-
Zeitgeist does not excuse effect. I am certain the US Federal Government and Life Magazine would regret publishing today what they did in the 1940's:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTw3Sro2TgiszCmikXsIWcuzklVOfAc5EDxj5myR8eVV7Ax-r8t)
I'm sure they would, and universally that would be the accepted reaction. I'm sure they have tobacco ads they used to run. I'm sure they have articles in the 1970's about how the earth is going to cool and global ice age is coming they wish they never ran. I'm sure they ran pieces about Betty homemaker that probably makes their skin crawl.
Again, most Native Americans don't feel this way about the name Redskins. Fundamentally I do not understand why so many people fail to process the difference. It is not a slur if you do not feel slurred against. The origins of the word were not suspect, despite every push from the left to make that history up. The dictionary didn't qualify the word in this fashion until the late 1960's and only one dictionary at that....took almost 15 years later for the second one to do so. The name was in place since the 1930's put in by a Native American coach who we're now told by some people that he wasn't Native American (even though he convinced a 100% Native American school to admit him and stay their his whole student career..he must have been one hell of an illusionist to not be Native American but convince a school for Native Americans, run by Native Americans and created by Native Americans that he was a Native American....a regular David Copperfield). The revisionist history has been fun to watch.
In the meantime, I came into the lobby today, Rich Eisen was doing his show (the set is based in our lobby where he does his live show) and there was Redskins stuff all over the place. It was rather fun....I enjoyed it. It's a team nickname, a nickname in which most Native Americans don't have an issue with it. It's a private matter. Don't like it, don't buy tickets, don't buy merchandise, don't watch on tv (they are dreadful team, so that's not hard to do). I'm good with that. If it is so abhorrent, so universally loathed, the name will be dropped for economic reasons, because people will not feel proud to wear the gear, go to the games, etc....especially those that are Native Americans that do so now, or get a Redskins tatoo, etc, etc.
To each their own.
-
Chico's .... whether the word originally was intended as a slur, or why the name was chosen, is pretty much irrelevant. There are many modern day slurs with innocent origins. That makes their use no more acceptable.
A simple test ... would you approach a Native American and refer to him/her as "redskin?"
A simple
Lamest test I've seen and it's been tried many times here and destroyed here many times. Do you approach an Irish person and say "hey Irish guy"? No. Do you go up to a woman and say "hey female"? NO. It's just completely stupid analogy, sorry...but just ridiculous on all levels. You would say "excuse me, sir" or "excuse me, maam". Same as you would address anyone else. No one addresses anyone by any other means. I'm not going up to some guy and say "hey American"...."hey Chinese American"...."hey Polish American"....it's just absurd and I don't know why people (the left especially) come up with this lame "test". It's not simple, it's simply dumb.
As a follow-up, I've also asked the question...if I'm at any number of Native American schools in this country that have Redskins as their nickname and I cheer "Go Redskins" while I'm in the stands and we're cheering on the football team....am I alienating everyone in the stands that is a Native American? I mean, I must because it could be construed as "referencing" them as Redskins. I suspect not, especially when everyone else is cheering on the team, which is the whole point...it's a TEAM NICKNAME.
-
Again, most Native Americans don't feel this way about the name Redskins. Fundamentally I do not understand why so many people fail to process the difference. It is not a slur if you do not feel slurred against. The origins of the word were not suspect, despite every push from the left to make that history up. The dictionary didn't qualify the word in this fashion until the late 1960's and only one dictionary at that....took almost 15 years later for the second one to do so. The name was in place since the 1930's put in by a Native American coach who we're now told by some people that he wasn't Native American (even though he convinced a 100% Native American school to admit him and stay their his whole year...he must have been one hell of an illusionist). The revisionist history has been fun to watch.
Of course you don't know this to be true. Yet you have repeated the same thing about 40 times in this thread.
Anything original to say or will you just keep flooding the thread until everyone tires of you?
-
Lamest test I've seen and it's been tried many times here and destroyed here many times. Do you approach an Irish person and say "hey Irish guy"? No. Do you go up to a woman and say "hey female"? NO. It's just completely stupid analogy, sorry...but just ridiculous on all levels. You would say "excuse me, sir" or "excuse me, maam". Same as you would address anyone else. No one addresses anyone by any other means. I'm not going up to some guy and say "hey American"...."hey Chinese American"...."hey Polish American"....it's just absurd and I don't know why people (the left especially) come up with this lame "test". It's not simple, it's simply dumb.
You've provided the same lame answer to this supposedly lame test.
Nobody is saying to go up to an Indian and say: "Hey, redskin," any more than we are proposing you go up to a black person and say, "Hey, n-word," or a Polish person and say, "Hey, Polack" or, for that matter, a Christian and say, "Hey, Christian."
What I am saying is go into an Indian casino or a high school classroom on a reservation or some other place where Native Americans congregate and enter into a calm, serious discussion with them. "So, what does the redskin community think about current casino laws?" Or "How are economics of reservations going for today's redskins?"
No sane person would use the word "redskins" in those contexts because every sane person knows it would be construed as a slur and would immediately ice the discussion. Might even result in bodily harm. Meanwhile, substitute "Native American" or "American Indian" for "redskin" in the above examples and it would result in a perfectly fine conversation. (And I doubt any of the Indians would say, "You know, we actually prefer to be called 'redskins'!")
I would have no problem having a discussion about races/nationalities with blacks or Latinos or Chinese people or Indians. I don't believe the discussions would go so well if I referred to them as slurs in casual conversation.
"Hey (anything)" is not a conversation. Nobody talks like that, but you keep trying it as your default straw man argument.
-
I'm sure they would, and universally that would be the accepted reaction. I'm sure they have tobacco ads they used to run. I'm sure they have articles in the 1970's about how the earth is going to cool and global ice age is coming they wish they never ran. I'm sure they ran pieces about Betty homemaker that probably makes their skin crawl.
Again, most Native Americans don't feel this way about the name Redskins. Fundamentally I do not understand why so many people fail to process the difference. It is not a slur if you do not feel slurred against. The origins of the word were not suspect, despite every push from the left to make that history up. The dictionary didn't qualify the word in this fashion until the late 1960's and only one dictionary at that....took almost 15 years later for the second one to do so. The name was in place since the 1930's put in by a Native American coach who we're now told by some people that he wasn't Native American (even though he convinced a 100% Native American school to admit him and stay their his whole student career..he must have been one hell of an illusionist to not be Native American but convince a school for Native Americans, run by Native Americans and created by Native Americans that he was a Native American....a regular David Copperfield). The revisionist history has been fun to watch.
In the meantime, I came into the lobby today, Rich Eisen was doing his show (the set is based in our lobby where he does his live show) and there was Redskins stuff all over the place. It was rather fun....I enjoyed it. It's a team nickname, a nickname in which most Native Americans don't have an issue with it. It's a private matter. Don't like it, don't buy tickets, don't buy merchandise, don't watch on tv (they are dreadful team, so that's not hard to do). I'm good with that. If it is so abhorrent, so universally loathed, the name will be dropped for economic reasons, because people will not feel proud to wear the gear, go to the games, etc....especially those that are Native Americans that do so now, or get a Redskins tatoo, etc, etc.
To each their own.
I agree with your free market principles on the ultimate outcome of the name... but the first part of your post is just waaaaaay to political. Take that stuff out of it. You don't need it. Not everything is liberals vs conservatives.
You don't think it's a slur, and you think the free market should decide it's fate. Boom. Fine. Done.
When you get into all of the political stuff, you sound like some sort of maniac who is scared to death of the evil liberal agenda. Forget that stuff dude... it's not applicable here.
-
You've provided the same lame answer to this supposedly lame test.
Nobody is saying to go up to a Christian and say, "Hey, Christian."
Or worse, "Pork Eating Crusader"
Oh, wait, some people do say that about Christians...
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpogoVx9HBP-2RMqVUeOM3QexWcAXX74t0zJXq9aZu41X5I6K9)
-
Nobody is saying to go up to an Indian and say: "Hey, redskin," any more than we are proposing you go up to a black person and say, "Hey, n-word," or a Polish person and say, "Hey, Polack" or, for that matter, a Christian and say, "Hey, Christian."
Uhm, yes, that is exactly what some people are saying.
What I am saying is go into an Indian casino or a high school classroom on a reservation or some other place where Native Americans congregate and enter into a calm, serious discussion with them. "So, what does the redskin community think about current casino laws?" Or "How are economics of reservations going for today's redskins?"
So my example where I'm at a Native American school cheering on their football team, which happened to be called the Redskins (is this not a place where Native Americans congregate?) is off base? Or does it not count because....wait for it...we're cheering on a football team as a nickname? Oh the irony. Incidentally, what you suggested in your example, which is equally absurd, was essentially done by the San Diego news when they went to an Indian reservation a few months ago to inquire about the nickname. By my count, 80% on camera said they didn't give one rip about the nickname and had far bigger issues to deal with. It was, serious discussion with them.
No sane person would use the word "redskins" in those contexts because every sane person knows it would be construed as a slur and would immediately ice the discussion. Might even result in bodily harm. Meanwhile, substitute "Native American" or "American Indian" for "redskin" in the above examples and it would result in a perfectly fine conversation. (And I doubt any of the Indians would say, "You know, we actually prefer to be called 'redskins'!")
Ahh, so now Native Americans that don't believe it is a slur, believe it is an honorable name are now not sane! Cool. Lenny calls them dumb, ignorant, stupid and now you are calling these people not sane. Awesome.
-
I agree with your free market principles on the ultimate outcome of the name... but the first part of your post is just waaaaaay to political. Take that stuff out of it. You don't need it. Not everything is liberals vs conservatives.
You don't think it's a slur, and you think the free market should decide it's fate. Boom. Fine. Done.
When you get into all of the political stuff, you sound like some sort of maniac who is scared to death of the evil liberal agenda. Forget that stuff dude... it's not applicable here.
I am afraid of stupid people with stupid agendas that are upset they didn't get it on with the head cheerleader or whatever has them so bent for so many years that try to make decisions out of spite to penalize others. Stupidity can be had on the left and the right, but for issues like this it is usually the pants pissers leading the charge. It is what it is.
-
I am afraid of stupid people with stupid agendas that are upset they didn't get it on with the head cheerleader or whatever has them so bent for so many years that try to make decisions out of spite to penalize others. Stupidity can be had on the left and the right, but for issues like this it is usually the pants pissers leading the charge. It is what it is.
Well, then this topic is over, lock it up, mods.
If you like the name and you don't think it's a slur, fine. We can have a debate on that.
If you just think this whole thing is some sort of secret liberal agenda, then no, we can't talk about it because you aren't dealing in reality. You're just here to show everybody how the "pants pissers" are leading the charge, which isn't an honest conversation/debate, it's just ranting.
-
I am afraid of stupid people with stupid agendas that are upset they didn't get it on with the head cheerleader or whatever has them so bent for so many years that try to make decisions out of spite to penalize others. Stupidity can be had on the left and the right, but for issues like this it is usually the pants pissers leading the charge. It is what it is.
Deranged ramblings and ad hominems from a man without an argument. Redskins is a racial slur. It was used that way for decades in popular culture and earned its definition. That's right, its definition. The one in every English dictionary. Stupid? LOL. You know what's stupid? Clinging to bigotry and racism because of "tradition".
-
I am afraid of stupid people with stupid agendas that are upset they didn't get it on with the head cheerleader or whatever has them so bent for so many years that try to make decisions out of spite to penalize others. Stupidity can be had on the left and the right, but for issues like this it is usually the pants pissers leading the charge. It is what it is.
This post shows me your argument has no leg to stand on. Discussion over.