The Gold?

[Pakuni]

We've been talking about the Redskins name, and related to the name was a shareholders meeting for Fed Ex whether to pull their sponsorship of the team because of the name. 

Hoping for a Braves vs Indians World Series so the poutragers can get really ginned up.

Sigh .... you continue to refuse to recognize the huge difference between Redskins and other names.

[Lennys Tap]

Don't you find it interesting that Websters doesn't include the definition that Native Americans have said about it being an honorable term?  I wonder why that is?  I wonder why they have ignored the definition from the very people that CREATED the term.  Interesting.  Hmm...

Webster's dictionary is pretty inclusive regarding definitions. You sometimes base entire arguments around a fourth or fifth definition that is either rarely used or archaic. Write them a letter. Maybe they'll include YOUR definition:

Redskin: (noun) term invented by and loved by Native Americans to describe themselves - an homage. LOL

[Lennys Tap]

It's very much part of the discussion, and one of the reasons I gave the other day.  Private league, private team, he can do what he wants.  If there is so much outrage over the name, then people can stop buying jerseys, sweatshirts, hats, tickets, etc...money talks and Snyder would change the name.

Again, I don't want Snyder to be forced to change a name defined as offensive and in common conversation offensive. If he wants to call his team the Greaseballs, the Wops, the Hebes (short for Hebrews, so not offensive, right?) that's his business.

I just think it's wrong.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

We've been talking about the Redskins name, and related to the name was a shareholders meeting for Fed Ex whether to pull their sponsorship of the team because of the name.  

Hoping for a Braves vs Indians World Series so the poutragers can get really ginned up.

Honestly, you're all over the map on this topic.  

You have twisted, turned, squirmed and tied yourself into knots on this issue, and I'm not exactly sure why.

Cut down on the political rhetoric. Language and culture evolve over time. It's not always a liberal or progressive conspiracy. Not everything needs to be treated as such.

Snyder will run his PRIVATE organization however he wants. BUT, that doesn't mean people have to "like" the name.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sigh .... you continue to refuse to recognize the huge difference between Redskins and other names.

Quite to the contrary.  I realize there is a difference, but there is outrage over all those names.  Let me direct you to a poll by a Mr. Pakuni that says so.  LOL

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807

[ATL MU Warrior]

Honestly, you're all over the map on this topic.  

You have twisted, turned, squirmed and tied yourself into knots on this issue, and I'm not exactly sure why.

Cut down on the political rhetoric. Language and culture evolve over time. It's not always a liberal or progressive conspiracy. Not everything needs to be treated as such.

Snyder will run his PRIVATE organization however he wants. BUT, that doesn't mean people have to "like" the name.

Because he's an oppressed well-to-do white christian male...duh!

[Pakuni]

Quite to the contrary.  I realize there is a difference, but there is outrage over all those names.  Let me direct you to a poll by a Mr. Pakuni that says so.  LOL

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807

So, we should get rid of all those names because these decisions must be made on the basis of polls. So says a Mr. Chico's.

You're feebly trying to link the legitimate and widespread complaints over the use of a slur (Redskins) with fringe complaints about far less offensive terms (Braves, Browns) in an attempt to delegitimize all of them as a bunch of  lunatics rather than just take on the issue at hand.

FWIW ... your (disputed) source about the word's etymology makes the term no less of a slur. Plenty of contemporary ethnic slurs initially were created by the targeted group and/or have non-derogatory origins. The "N" word is one example of the latter. Or a certain 'K' word that refers to Jews.
That fact makes them no less offensive and derogatory in 2013.

Again, as others have asked, if you truly believe the word is not offensive, but rather a source of pride, would you be comfortable approaching a Native American and addressing him/her as "redskin?" Yes or no?

[Lennys Tap]

Offended by everything? Get a life

Not offended by anything? Get a clue.

I lean Chico's way in the PC discussion. People take too much offense at the innocuous. But when you try to make the truly offensive innocuous (or worse yet, call it an homage) you're just as unreasonable as the kooks in Seattle offended by "brown bagging".

[StillAWarrior]

Offended by everything? Get a life

Another one...

This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero."  He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc.  He had the "outrage meter" pegged.

[Skatastrophy]

Another one...

This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero."  He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc.  He had the "outrage meter" pegged.

He's right, though. You can't be a hero until you've killed at least 5 people.

[GGGG]

Another one...

This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero."  He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc.  He had the "outrage meter" pegged.

I do find the use of the word "hero" be interesting.  While it does meet the dictionary definition and has been regularly used to describe sports stars in the past, its use in the vernacular since 9/11 has narrowed its definition to include mostly the police, etc. that the caller mentioned.

I would have used "legend" instead.

But the larger point is correct.  I can't really get offended by that.

[StillAWarrior]

I do find the use of the word "hero" be interesting.  While it does meet the dictionary definition and has been regularly used to describe sports stars in the past, its use in the vernacular since 9/11 has narrowed its definition to include mostly the police, etc. that the caller mentioned.

I would have used "legend" instead.

But the larger point is correct.  I can't really get offended by that.

I know where you're coming from, and like you, I can't get offended.  He kept saying, "to me, a hero is..."  OK, fine.  To you, that's a hero.  But spare the offense if to someone else, it means something else.

[Coleman]

You're feebly trying to link the legitimate and widespread complaints over the use of a slur (Redskins) with fringe complaints about far less offensive terms (Braves, Browns) in an attempt to delegitimize all of them as a bunch of  lunatics rather than just take on the issue at hand.

This.

[tower912]

Another one...

This morning I heard someone on the radio who was really upset that MLB had taken out an advertisement honoring Mariano Rivera that said, "From retiring batters to retiring hero."  He objected to the use of the word hero, and argued that it was a slap in the face to real heroes like police, firefights, military, etc.  He had the "outrage meter" pegged.

As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes.   There are some with an inflated sense of self, as there are in all professions.   It has been my experience that the ones who have to tell you how great they are......aren't.     But referring to a later post, I think 'legend' more aptly captures the essence of Mariano Rivera.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Honestly, you're all over the map on this topic.  

You have twisted, turned, squirmed and tied yourself into knots on this issue, and I'm not exactly sure why.

Cut down on the political rhetoric. Language and culture evolve over time. It's not always a liberal or progressive conspiracy. Not everything needs to be treated as such.

Snyder will run his PRIVATE organization however he wants. BUT, that doesn't mean people have to "like" the name.

Show me how I have tied myself in knots on this.  Been consistent since day one.  Or where I have made this about any conspiracy?  If anything, you guys have tied yourselves in knots.

To summarize, Native Americans that are ok with Redskins as a name are just wrong or don't get it, and should be ignored despite polling showing support because we (the outraged) are right and we are going to be outraged for them in their absence....that is, of course, not the case for the Native Americans that answered they are outraged in a poll about Redskins as a name (be it the minority in three scientific polls or one that we're not sure of)...they are enlightened and their answers count....HOWEVER, those same good and smart Native Americans that are outraged over Redskins are also wrong when it comes to Braves, Indians, and symbols because they are just overdoing it on the PC side and they just need to calm down because, well...it's different.

This is awesome

-----

On the other hand, I haven't tied anything into knots...been  pretty straight forward:

Native Americans aren't nearly as outraged as the few non Native Americans that want to bubble this up and are inheritently outraged over just about everything anyway.  Said that from day one. CHECK

I've provided backup in polling data, actual scientific polling data from Native Americans to prove my point.  Someone else came up with a different poll, which we don't know if it is scientific at all, that is even older than what I had posted.  That same poll, also mentions the supposed angst against other names, symbols, etc, as well, but that we should ignore (cuz it's not the same  ).    CHECK

We have some totally misinterpreting polls to begin with. In one example, the complaint was not enough participants, even though it was a statistically significant sample and done by polling firms all the time.  In another example, someone is using a subset of internals to claim that is the level of folks against the nickname (this is like saying a politician won 55% of the vote, but lost lefthanders 60% to 40% and thus that 60% holds more weight than what the nation voted as a whole.)  At the end of the day, 90% of Native Americans said they had no problem with it, in another it was 75%...the fact that a subset of the internals who the support was only 57% for some Native Americans is rolled up into the overall number...it's just that, a subset.  CHECK

It is a private entity in which he can do what he wants, also said that. CHECK

[keefe]

you're just as unreasonable as the kooks in Seattle offended by "brown bagging"

The Seattle city government has banned the use of the term "brown bag lunch" as it was a skin tone admission standard employed by black frats and sororities. Instead, people were urged to use the term "sack lunch" which was reportedly embraced with relish by the Capitol Hill neighborhood crowd.

Seattle has also directed that staff begin using the term "residents" rather than "citizens."

I wasn't aware that people objected to the name of the Cleveland football team. I thought it was common knowledge the team was named for founder Paul Brown. In fact, I recall the Brown's mascot was a pixie character. There was never anything racial about the name Browns.

   

[StillAWarrior]

As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes.   There are some with an inflated sense of self, as there are in all professions.   It has been my experience that the ones who have to tell you how great they are......aren't.     But referring to a later post, I think 'legend' more aptly captures the essence of Mariano Rivera.

I don't disagree.

[keefe]

As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes. 

Anyone who has placed the needs of the many above his own self-preservation by going into harm's way is estimable by any measure. The image of the firefighters ascending the tower stairs as thousands rushed down is more eloquent than any words. God keep each and every one of those brave souls safe in His house.

[swoopem]

As a firefighter, we don't generally consider ourselves heroes.   There are some with an inflated sense of self, as there are in all professions.  It has been my experience that the ones who have to tell you how great they are......aren't.     But referring to a later post, I think 'legend' more aptly captures the essence of Mariano Rivera.

This reminds me of a Walter Payton quote- "When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you."

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Show me how I have tied myself in knots on this.  Been consistent since day one.  Or where I have made this about any conspiracy?  If anything, you guys have tied yourselves in knots.

To summarize, Native Americans that are ok with Redskins as a name are just wrong or don't get it, and should be ignored despite polling showing support because we (the outraged) are right and we are going to be outraged for them in their absence....that is, of course, not the case for the Native Americans that answered they are outraged in a poll about Redskins as a name (be it the minority in three scientific polls or one that we're not sure of)...they are enlightened and their answers count....HOWEVER, those same good and smart Native Americans that are outraged over Redskins are also wrong when it comes to Braves, Indians, and symbols because they are just overdoing it on the PC side and they just need to calm down because, well...it's different.

This is awesome

-----

On the other hand, I haven't tied anything into knots...been  pretty straight forward:

Native Americans aren't nearly as outraged as the few non Native Americans that want to bubble this up and are inheritently outraged over just about everything anyway.  Said that from day one. CHECK

I've provided backup in polling data, actual scientific polling data from Native Americans to prove my point.  Someone else came up with a different poll, which we don't know if it is scientific at all, that is even older than what I had posted.  That same poll, also mentions the supposed angst against other names, symbols, etc, as well, but that we should ignore (cuz it's not the same  ).    CHECK

We have some totally misinterpreting polls to begin with. In one example, the complaint was not enough participants, even though it was a statistically significant sample and done by polling firms all the time.  In another example, someone is using a subset of internals to claim that is the level of folks against the nickname (this is like saying a politician won 55% of the vote, but lost lefthanders 60% to 40% and thus that 60% holds more weight than what the nation voted as a whole.)  At the end of the day, 90% of Native Americans said they had no problem with it, in another it was 75%...the fact that a subset of the internals who the support was only 57% for some Native Americans is rolled up into the overall number...it's just that, a subset.  CHECK

It is a private entity in which he can do what he wants, also said that. CHECK

In 2025, when there is another poll, and 51% of Native Americans decide it's offensive... are you going advocate that the name be changed?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, we should get rid of all those names because these decisions must be made on the basis of polls. So says a Mr. Chico's.

You're feebly trying to link the legitimate and widespread complaints over the use of a slur (Redskins) with fringe complaints about far less offensive terms (Braves, Browns) in an attempt to delegitimize all of them as a bunch of  lunatics rather than just take on the issue at hand.

FWIW ... your (disputed) source about the word's etymology makes the term no less of a slur. Plenty of contemporary ethnic slurs initially were created by the targeted group and/or have non-derogatory origins. The "N" word is one example of the latter. Or a certain 'K' word that refers to Jews.
That fact makes them no less offensive and derogatory in 2013.

Again, as others have asked, if you truly believe the word is not offensive, but rather a source of pride, would you be comfortable approaching a Native American and addressing him/her as "redskin?" Yes or no?

My disputed source?  Don't think so. 

No, I don't think we should get rid of ANY of those names, the polls are just there to help dampen down the absurdity when someone says "a bunch of people are against this".  Uhm, ok.  Really?  Quantify it.  That's what polling does, it's a tool, nothing more, but a tool to gauge things.  Polls can be manipulated with how questions are asked, etc.  So back to it, I only use the polls to show that just because the media or some outraged person thinks the numbers are on their side, doesn't mean the numbers are on their side.  By the way, I used your poll for those other names...seems you want it both ways to me.  You're ok that the poll supports Redskins bad, not ok the poll says Braves, Indians, etc bad.  Which is it?

For the last time, it ultimately doesn't matter what I believe...it's what the supposed people that are supposedly denigrated believe.  If I go to any one of the Native American high schools that use Redskins as a nickname and I sit in the stands, wear my Redskins sweatshirt, hat, and cheer GO REDSKINS...am I slurring those people?  You tell me.  I say no, you may feel differently.

[4everwarriors]

I'm pretty sure "sack" is gonna be offensive to some class of of folks too.

[Pakuni]

My disputed source?  Don't think so. 

Yes, Chico's. There are other accounts of the word's etymology.
But again, explain how that's relevant to how the term is used/viewed today? Even your study's author says:

"you could believe everything in my article" and still oppose current public usage of "redskin."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

No, I don't think we should get rid of ANY of those names, the polls are just there to help dampen down the absurdity when someone says "a bunch of people are against this".  Uhm, ok.  Really?  Quantify it. 

OK, Chico's, so how many people need to find the word offensive for their feelings to qualify as no longer absurd? 40 percent? 51 percent? 100 percent?
Quantify it.

For the last time, it ultimately doesn't matter what I believe...it's what the supposed people that are supposedly denigrated believe.  If I go to any one of the Native American high schools that use Redskins as a nickname and I sit in the stands, wear my Redskins sweatshirt, hat, and cheer GO REDSKINS...am I slurring those people?  You tell me.  I say no, you may feel differently.

Interesting that you ignore that the leader of one of those schools  - a whopping three nationwide - said the term should not be used by non-native organizations.
You're more than happy to trot out their opinions when you think it defends the term, but just as happy to ignore their opinions when it comes to the NFL Redskins.

So, would you approach a Native American and address him or her as "redskin?" I can't imagine why not, it being a term of honor.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again, I don't want Snyder to be forced to change a name defined as offensive and in common conversation offensive. If he wants to call his team the Greaseballs, the Wops, the Hebes (short for Hebrews, so not offensive, right?) that's his business.

I just think it's wrong.

Correct, YOU think it's wrong.  The people supposedly wronged, don't agree.  Thus, the irony.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, Chico's. There are other accounts of the word's etymology.
But again, explain how that's relevant to how the term is used/viewed today? Even your study's author says:

"you could believe everything in my article" and still oppose current public usage of "redskin."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

OK, Chico's, so how many people need to find the word offensive for their feelings to qualify as no longer absurd? 40 percent? 51 percent? 100 percent?
Quantify it.

Interesting that you ignore that the leader of one of those schools  - a whopping three nationwide - said the term should not be used by non-native organizations.
You're more than happy to trot out their opinions when you think it defends the term, but just as happy to ignore their opinions when it comes to the NFL Redskins.

So, would you approach a Native American and address him or her as "redskin?" I can't imagine why not, it being a term of honor.

Is it a slur for me to be at a Redskins game on a Native American reservation and cheer "GO REDSKINS" in honor of their team playing right there on the field...am I slurring them?  I'm right there in their presence, I must be slurring them...right?  If they had a cheer that said We are, Redskins, We are, Redskins and I cheered along, are we all slurring each other?

My question doesn't seem to be answered.

And no, its more than 3 schools nationwide, but let's use your 3 and the one that is against it (note, one person, not the school)...33%.   Let's reverse your question, how many people does it take to be outraged for it to matter? I've asked this question several pages ago.  I ask you the same question you asked me.  It seems to me you want to hold one standard where if someone is outraged, only a few people or a small percentage have to be upset and that is enough.  Forget majority, you, Brew, others seem to be saying all it takes is 20%, 30% or whatever and that's enough.  The minority of the minority.  Interesting.  If I am stating your case incorrectly, please correct me, but that's how I read your argument.  In my view, the Native American population is the one that should have the biggest voice in this (not the only voice), and almost everything I've seen shows they support the name.  There is always going to be a minority against everything...Apple Pie, bread, air, Browns, using more than 4 squares to wipe thy arse....you seem to put a lot more weighting on the subset of this minority population (Native Americans) to say what the majority of Native Americans feel doesn't count, it is what the minority of this minority care which matters.