Washington Redskins change their name

[Let's Go Warriors]

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" 
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 :-)

[Benny B]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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" 
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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[keefe]

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...

[Benny B]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[MUsoxfan]

Nm

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[keefe]

the rest is just people wanting to hear themselves pontificate.

Are you discriminating against us non-Catholics??

[MU82]

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!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

1967.....anyone want to guess?  For you dictionary buffs....that is a clue.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[Lennys Tap]

The very fact that you think they are unnecessary is what makes them necessary.

Huh?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.