Not that this would have helped the Warriors mascot

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think Mr. Will said it very well today

"...the new biggest American entitlement is the entitlement to go through life without being offended. People think they have a right not to have their feelings hurt, not to have their sensibilities in any way exacerbated. I'd refer them to Jefferson who said, it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or one god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. We have forked for millennia to get to a point where we say the law will protect our possessions and our persons, but not our feelings and people just have to get over it."

[keefe]

I think Mr. Will said it very well today

"...the new biggest American entitlement is the entitlement to go through life without being offended. People think they have a right not to have their feelings hurt, not to have their sensibilities in any way exacerbated. I'd refer them to Jefferson who said, it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or one god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. We have forked for millennia to get to a point where we say the law will protect our possessions and our persons, but not our feelings and people just have to get over it."

I have always been a fan of George Will. Tremendous commentator. And appreciates the classic elegance of baseball.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I can't speak for the nickname, but "notre dame" is French, not English (or Celtic or Latin, for that matter).  That said, while I don't know this for sure, I would doubt an Irishman founded ND.

In any case, I still don't really buy that "Fighting Irish" is different than "Redskins."  I'm open to changing my mind, but I've heard this for quite sometime and have yet to hear a persuasive argument.  If some person (group?) is offended at having their people portrayed as a little red-haired drunkard putting up his dukes, then it is offensive.  I can see why someone/group of people would find that offensive.

Claiming one mascot is more offensive than the next because of who created it is a tenuous position to hold, IMO--it leads to biting some big bullets.  "Redskins is racist.  Wait what?  Oh, so the guy who came up with the term had a Cherokee grandfather?  Oh...well, on second thought, it's actually not that racist."

AC was a little off in his Notre Dame history. Notre Dame was not founded by Irishmen, but it was an irish serving institution. Back in the day, the Irish were a minority popluation in the United States and were discriminated against. Many colleges went so far as to not allow Irishmen to enroll. Seeing a particular need (an untapped target market), Notre Dame began to cater to Irish-Americans. This is one of the reasons why Fighting Irish is different than Redskins. Notre Dame was a bunch of Irishmen naming their mascot after themselves. Redskins is a bunch of white men naming their mascot after a culture they don't belong too. Notre Dame is exactly like UNC Pemboke. They have a waiver from the NCAA to call themselves the Indians. The are a tribal college where more than 33% of their enrollment is Native Americans. Native Americans naming their mascot after their own culture.

2. Fighting Irish is the name of a people, redskin is a derogatory term for a minority population. Now change redskin to Seminoles for example, you have more of an arguement.

3 (and most importantly in my opinion). The Irish are no longer a minority population. Being born Irish no longer affords you inherent disadvantages the same way being born into a minority population does. Naming a team the fighting Irish is the members of the majority deciding to celebrate their heritage as members of the empowered majority. The Washington Redskins are a bunch of white folk deciding to take the culture of a minority population and reduce it to a sideshow at football games. Naming a team the Redskins is an example oppression (albeit unintended oppression). It's really hard to oppress the Irish as they are now in the majority population.

[keefe]

UNC Pemboke. They have a waiver from the NCAA to call themselves the Indians.

I'm thinking a man can get a damn fine curry in the UNC Pembroke dorm cafeterias.

[willie warrior]

I'm thinking a man can get a damn fine curry in the UNC Pembroke dorm cafeterias.

Models for the new Warrior Uniforms.

[willie warrior]

AC was a little off in his Notre Dame history. Notre Dame was not founded by Irishmen, but it was an irish serving institution. Back in the day, the Irish were a minority popluation in the United States and were discriminated against. Many colleges went so far as to not allow Irishmen to enroll. Seeing a particular need (an untapped target market), Notre Dame began to cater to Irish-Americans. This is one of the reasons why Fighting Irish is different than Redskins. Notre Dame was a bunch of Irishmen naming their mascot after themselves. Redskins is a bunch of white men naming their mascot after a culture they don't belong too. Notre Dame is exactly like UNC Pemboke. They have a waiver from the NCAA to call themselves the Indians. The are a tribal college where more than 33% of their enrollment is Native Americans. Native Americans naming their mascot after their own culture.

2. Fighting Irish is the name of a people, redskin is a derogatory term for a minority population. Now change redskin to Seminoles for example, you have more of an arguement.

3 (and most importantly in my opinion). The Irish are no longer a minority population. Being born Irish no longer affords you inherent disadvantages the same way being born into a minority population does. Naming a team the fighting Irish is the members of the majority deciding to celebrate their heritage as members of the empowered majority. The Washington Redskins are a bunch of white folk deciding to take the culture of a minority population and reduce it to a sideshow at football games. Naming a team the Redskins is an example oppression (albeit unintended oppression). It's really hard to oppress the Irish as they are now in the majority population.

Redskin is also the name of a potato--so we would should all feel outrage at that blatant vegetable racism.

[RyanConroy]

Of course not.  LOL

My favorite is watching the MSNBC crew the last few days with their heads exploding about the Duck Dynasty guy....these same guys calling him a redneck....these same talking heads unbelievably miffed at Redskins name last month and yet using a derogatory term the last two days (you can't make it up)....these same guys having no issue with Al Sharpton's crap....the hypocrisy has been hilarious.  You know it's bad when even Slate is calling out their own side for the double standards.  LOL.

If that side of the spectrum is going to play the high mantle card, the elitist "we are better" than the rest of America card, if you're going to pretend to lecture the unwashed you might want to not commit the same boner they are so outraged at by doing the same thing.  Or, better yet, pretend not to be outraged by either word and have a beer. That's what I'm doing.

The Redneck Redskins.  I like it, great name.

This post was fantastic at not responding to anything I wrote and instead being very angry at leftist media. If you were prodding for a defense of outlets like MSNBC and Slate, you won't find it from me. I'm not outraged, and think that plenty of great people support terms like "Redskins." I do not, and enjoy having discussions to promote that viewpoint.

[RyanConroy]

Yes.  Repeat the same infraction you have an issue with. That makes perfect sense and evens things out doesn't it.

I don't think there's much "sense" involved in racism and reverse racism (again, I hate this term).

I think it's easy for white people to feel defensive and hurt about and have a big problem with the latter. After all, the vast majority of us have never been responsible for the conscious support of discrimination and oppression (especially when it comes to pre-Civil Rights Movements injustice). But that doesn't mean American society has suddenly been made fully equal, or that pain of the past has been washed away. Those problems are still here. And even though people like us weren't around for it, white men built a society that favored themselves (and, to a relatively lesser extent, one that still does today).

So if a person of color sadly or angrily comes to terms with the atrocious past experienced by their ancestors (perhaps ones who are still living) and the senseless inequality that still exists today, I can understand that they may see the still-privileged white people of today as responsible.

That doesn't make it right. It makes it understandable. And it isn't comparable to the discrimination that people of color experience.

[RyanConroy]

My brother in law, part Native American, feels the same way about Redskins.  But again, it only takes one.

Despite what your cousin's friend's mom's coworker who is 10% Native American may believe, no significant portion of the indigenous nation finds the term "redskin" to be endearing.

[RyanConroy]

Yeah--refresh my memory--didn't Howard Cosell, that paragon of Liberal PC--refer to some guy as a "little monkey" that caused a bit of storm back in the day.

And didn't Bobby Knight say in an interview with Connie Chung say that "if it is inevitable that you are going to be raped, you might as well lay back and enjoy it."?

Ah yes, the good old days. At least to some people.

Yes, they were in fact the golden days for white American men like yourself. Sounds like you really enjoyed your gift-wrapped spot at the top of the social hierarchy while it lasted.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This post was fantastic at not responding to anything I wrote and instead being very angry at leftist media. If you were prodding for a defense of outlets like MSNBC and Slate, you won't find it from me. I'm not outraged, and think that plenty of great people support terms like "Redskins." I do not, and enjoy having discussions to promote that viewpoint.

My first sentence was in response to you. 

The rest, was just me opining in general.  My apologies for not clarifying. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Despite what your cousin's friend's mom's coworker who is 10% Native American may believe, no significant portion of the indigenous nation finds the term "redskin" to be endearing.

Despite your viewpoint, polls of Native Americans say you are wrong....unless you are now saying a MAJORITY is no longer a "significant portion".  LOL.  So much so, that several Native American schools even use the nickname themselves.


"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."


Begs the question, if so many Native Americans are against it now, why don't those supporting this change do a more recent poll, rather than blasting the last one as "too old" or whatever else they come up with to marginalize it?  Or maybe they have done a poll(s), and didn't like the results that came out.   

[RyanConroy]

My first sentence was in response to you. 

The rest, was just me opining in general.  My apologies for not clarifying. 

Gotcha. Didn't realize the angry laughter of a person unwilling to consider that his own perception and system of beliefs may not be perfect constitutes a reply.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Gotcha. Didn't realize the angry laughter of a person unwilling to consider that his own perception and system of beliefs may not be perfect constitutes a reply.

Angry laughter....nope, none here.  Did you take Psyc 1001 to determine that?  There are a few folks here that play Psychologists on this board...you could start a clinic.

[RyanConroy]

Despite your viewpoint, polls of Native Americans say you are wrong....unless you are now saying a MAJORITY is no longer a "significant portion".  LOL.  So much so, that several Native American schools even use the nickname themselves.


"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name "Washington Redskins" offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."


Begs the question, if so many Native Americans are against it now, why don't those supporting this change do a more recent poll, rather than blasting the last one as "too old" or whatever else they come up with to marginalize it?  Or maybe they have done a poll(s), and didn't like the results that came out.   

Did not bother them = They find it endearing?

Also re: your poll:

"...poll neglected to ask some crucial questions. 'Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?'

Sounds like some ineffective polling procedures.

---

Determining if "Redskin" is racist or hurtful can be solved by a very simple test: Would you meet a Native American and refer to them as a "redskin" to their face? I'd hope not.

[RyanConroy]

Angry laughter....nope, none here.  Did you take Psyc 1001 to determine that?  There are a few folks here that play Psychologists on this board...you could start a clinic.

My apologies, I somehow misconstrued "lol" in all caps followed by an angry rant to be angry laughter. I never took a PSYC class, I'm afraid. I'm just informed by common sense.

[Lennys Tap]

This argument is a microcosm for where this country is today politically. One side is so over the top touchy/feely they see slurs when there are none. To view Warriors, Braves, Indians, Fighting Sioux (or Irish), etc. as derogatory or slurs is as silly. You have to see things that aren't there to take offense. The other side is so concerned with not being PC they tie themselves up in knots trying to turn terms that are by definition derogatory/slurs (Redskins, Chinks Gooks, etc) into something they're not. They deny what is right in front of them to prove their credentials as non PC.

This is so simple. Words have meanings. Look them up. For anyone willing to use a dictionary and just a smidge of common sense this whole topic is simple.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Did not bother them = They find it endearing?

Also re: your poll:

"...poll neglected to ask some crucial questions. 'Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?'

Sounds like some ineffective polling procedures.

---

Determining if "Redskin" is racist or hurtful can be solved by a very simple test: Would you meet a Native American and refer to them as a "redskin" to their face? I'd hope not.

Annenburg doing ineffective polling procedures, or you don't like the results of the poll?       Again, if you are so certain you are right on this along with others opining the same way, one would think a very effective tool would be to run a poll of this critically important issue to Native Americans so there is evidence that the ground swell of support exists.  Wonder why that hasn't been done.

Would I attend a Redskin football game at Native American schools with the Redskins nickname the CHOSE for their school and cheer on the Redskins (LOUDLY) and wear a Redskin sweatshirt in the presence of Native Americans.  I sure would.  Would that be a problem, you know since these folks are so offended by this nickname (to the point they self selected it on their own)?  I wouldn't go up to my Uncle, Terry Shaunessy and tell him he is a Fighting Irishman to his face, either, but does that mean I have a problem with the Fighting Irish or that he has a problem with that nickname?  Sounds like an argument bridge is missing some of it's supports.      


On a side note, I'll be in Pasadena for the BCS Championship game with Florida State coming into town.  I am looking forward to hearing and seeing the Warhawk Chop in all of its glory in that stadium, their first visit ever to the Rose Bowl.  I'm sure someone will be offended, I'm sure someone will be outraged....I'm sure I won't care one bit.  Maybe I'll wear a tshirt with a cross in a jar of urine, or better yet a Martin Bashir mask....someone will surely get spun up.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This argument is a microcosm for where this country is today politically. One side is so over the top touchy/feely they see slurs when there are none. To view Warriors, Braves, Indians, Fighting Sioux (or Irish), etc. as derogatory or slurs is as silly. You have to see things that aren't there to take offense. The other side is so concerned with not being PC they tie themselves up in knots trying to turn terms that are by definition derogatory/slurs (Redskins, Chinks Gooks, etc) into something they're not. They deny what is right in front of them to prove their credentials as non PC.

This is so simple. Words have meanings. Look them up. For anyone willing to use a dictionary and just a smidge of common sense this whole topic is simple.

Except that we also know that certain folks get to write history, define meanings of words, etc.  When the director of the Smithsonian Institute's Linguistics division has a definition about Redskins that doesn't make it into that definition, why is that the case?  He's an expert in his field.    So who is determining the definitions?  Who gets to decide?  Who gets to decide who is outraged, especially when those that are supposed to be outraged (in poll after poll) prove that they are not....gasp....outraged or offended.  Have you ever thought that the guilt factor here in this country that plays into so much of this BS has become so consumed with it's own power to decide who should be offended that they missed the most basic element, which is finding out if it is THEY that are offended or the actual peoples that they THINK should be offended.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

[RyanConroy]

Annenburg doing ineffective polling procedures, or you don't like the results of the poll?       Again, if you are so certain you are right on this along with others opining the same way, one would think a very effective tool would be to run a poll of this critically important issue to Native Americans so there is evidence that the ground swell of support exists.  Wonder why that hasn't been done.

Would I attend a Redskin football game at Native American schools with the Redskins nickname the CHOSE for their school and cheer on the Redskins (LOUDLY) and wear a Redskin sweatshirt in the presence of Native Americans.  I sure would.  Would that be a problem, you know since these folks are so offended by this nickname (to the point they self selected it on their own)?  I wouldn't go up to my Uncle, Terry Shaunessy and tell him he is a Fighting Irishman to his face, either, but does that mean I have a problem with the Fighting Irish or that he has a problem with that nickname?  Sounds like an argument bridge is missing some of it's supports.      


On a side note, I'll be in Pasadena for the BCS Championship game with Florida State coming into town.  I am looking forward to hearing and seeing the Warhawk Chop in all of its glory in that stadium, their first visit ever to the Rose Bowl.  I'm sure someone will be offended, I'm sure someone will be outraged....I'm sure I won't care one bit.  Maybe I'll wear a tshirt with a cross in a jar of urine, or better yet a Martin Bashir mask....someone will surely get spun up.

Those are very simple questions that any legitimate pollster would have drawn up within 30 seconds of conceiving the idea to create a poll. You can try to leverage the results of a silly, nine-year-old poll all you'd like, but what really matters here is how you answered my question (or, as is often the case with you, how you didn't).

I'm not sure from where this hypothetical situation you've farted into existence comes, but it really tells us nothing. This debate is very simple. Three questions should be asked:

1. Is "Redskins" traditionally racist or hurtful?

2. Are indigenous people rightfully offended by the modern use of "Redskins"?

3. Is retaining NFL traditions and appeasing mouth-foaming counter-activists more important than any pain experienced by those offended?

For me, the answers to these three questions are clearly yes. Enjoy the football game. Hope you feel the illusion of liberty that you desire.

(And, for what it's worth, as an Irish person, I don't see why any Irish person would be offended by being referred to as a Fighting Irishman)

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Can we please call a WWI British-German Christmas truce on this one?

[Lennys Tap]

Except that we also know that certain folks get to write history, define meanings of words, etc.  When the director of the Smithsonian Institute's Linguistics division has a definition about Redskins that doesn't make it into that definition, why is that the case?  He's an expert in his field.    So who is determining the definitions?  Who gets to decide?  Who gets to decide who is outraged, especially when those that are supposed to be outraged (in poll after poll) prove that they are not....gasp....outraged or offended.  Have you ever thought that the guilt factor here in this country that plays into so much of this BS has become so consumed with it's own power to decide who should be offended that they missed the most basic element, which is finding out if it is THEY that are offended or the actual peoples that they THINK should be offended.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

I know how much you yearn for those "good old days" of the late 1700s but common sense would dictate using today's definitions to settle today's disagreements. You want to fight with the dictionaries (which you're quick to deem as speaking ex cathedra when you think they even slightly aid your argument - oh the irony, sigh, sigh) take it up with them. Just proves what I said earlier. Those at the extremes aren't interested in a common sense solution.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Redskin is also the name of a potato--so we would should all feel outrage at that blatant vegetable racism.

This is the best you come up with? I'm counting this as a victory

[Benny B]

Right, we are actually saying the same thing but viewing it differently. Requiring 10% of a group, as opposed to a single American citizen, in order to voice an opinion to the government is (arguably) unconstitutional. The argument is that requiring 10%, or any other threshold, for an individual to protest the government creates a chilling factor.

We'll see. Things like this usually end up in the court system and con law scholars much smarter than us sort it out.

You're confusing the issue... nobody is saying you'd have to meet a 10% threshold to voice your opinion or protest the government.  You can hold a one-person protest, and that doesn't preclude anybody from taking action... but in order to force an action be taken on your protest, you need to get to 10%.  There's nothing unreasonable or unconstitutional about that.

Look at it this way: The US Constitution gives me the right as a 35+ year old, American-born citizen to be elected President of the United States.  It's my constitutional right to run for office should I so choose.  But I can't simply force the government to put my name on the ballot just because I want to run... there's a nomination process, and I have to meet a certain threshold of signatures.  And in the end, it's not up to just one person to decide whether or not I become President... I need to be elected by a group of people who represent the entire population.

[ChicosBailBonds]