This again

My attitude is this: Native Americans say the name is offensive and I don't think anyone who is not of that ethnicity is really in a position to disagree with them. In fact, it is incredibly patronizing for those who are not Native American to offer arguments as to why the name is not offensive. I'm Jewish and if someone who was not Jewish attempted to tell me what I should and should not be offended by I would be a little perturbed.

So far the only argument proffered here has basically been, "im part chinese and i wouldn't care if there was a chinamen team" or whatever. That's fine, but the American Indian nation is still overwhelmingly against having its identity appropriated for sports mascot use and it is inappropriate and insensitive for any of us to argue with them as pedestrians - especially when our real motivation is our own sports fandom. Also, as to the Giants offending short people, short people are not a historically oppressed group that have been subjected to systematic genocide over two centuries, so they are not really in the same position to complain. Still, if they ever did launch any organized concerted effort to change the Giants name based on perceived offensiveness, I wouldn't argue with them as a six footer. I would respect their complaints.

I feel that Native Americans have suffered so much over the last 200 years and change that maybe we should just give them this one. Besides, its the Washington I root for, not the redskin.

Nice take.

That's the thing I have a problem with. If someone finds the name offensive, that's their opinion and they have a right to feel that way. We shouldn't sit here and say, you shouldn't feel that way. Who are we to say??

In this time of political correctness it's too easy to brush off other's feelings and say bah, you're being too sensitive.

We should at least respect where these people are coming from. It's ok to agree to disagree, but someone's opinion shouldn't be dismissed just because you don't agree.

That's fine, but the American Indian nation is still overwhelmingly against having its identity appropriated for sports mascot use and it is inappropriate and insensitive for any of us to argue with them as pedestrians - especially when our real motivation is our own sports fandom.

A small minority of American Indians find the name offensive:
Ninety percent of American Indians say the name Washington Redskins does not offend them, according to a new national survey.
Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040925-121238-9407r.htm

Small minorities get upset. I've heard people complain about UPS's "what can brown do for you" slogan. People like the have a reason to complain, but saying that a whole race overwhelmingly feels that way is out and out wrong.

More links:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6093796/

I feel this is also a good point:
How can it be that communities honor such groups as patriots, padres, angels, packers, rangers, and Forty-Niners by naming beloved teams after them, but when they name their teams after ethnic groups it constitutes an insult?
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/redskins.html

"In the Native American mascot controversy, the nickname "redskins" is particularly controversial and offensive. Historically, the term was used to refer to the scalps of dead Native Americans that were exchanged for money as bounties, or cash rewards. When it became too difficult to bring in the bodies of dead Indians to get the money (usually under a dollar per person), bounty hunters exchanged bloody scalps or "redskins" as evidence of the dead Indian." http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/winter03-1.cfm

I know that polls never tell the whole story, but what do you make of these results from the same link you posted?

"According to the Sports Illustrated survey, 87 percent of American Indians who lived off Indian reservations did not object to Native American mascots or nicknames. Of the Indians who lived on reservations, 67 percent were not bothered by the nicknames, while 33 percent opposed them."

Survey says:

"The mascot issue is most controversial at the local level. Although numerous schools have voluntarily taken action to cease using Native American symbols, (see sidebar) many school boards have refused to do so. Supporters of Native American mascots and nicknames point to surveys, such as the one published by Sports Illustrated in March 2002, which found that although most Native American activists found Indian mascots and nicknames offensive, the majority of non-activist American Indians were not disturbed by them."

As far as the political part of this, it sounds to me like an extremist thing. Now, if the large majority of Native Americans were opposed to the name, then for one thing, the name would have been changed decades ago, and two I would say if the majority find it offensive, change the name. However, this does not appear to be the case, and why should the team change the name to satisfy a small portion of the activists when it appears that the large majority is not offended?

I don't get upset about the team nickname. Change it or leave it as it is; I really don't care.

I agree that one's persepctive and upbringing and ethnicity colors how one reacts to certain words and images. I also think that there is a cottage industry out there of people who are spring loaded to take offense at just about anything and make a stink about it. Those are the people who bother me.

PETA protested that the Packers should change their name because it glorified what happened in slaughterhouses. That's an example of being spring loaded to be pissed off about anything.

Several years ago, I did an article on how easy it was to be offended by words if all you were doing was trying to find a way to take offense. I think it is important to separate - if at al possible - people who are genuinely offended from the professional "offense-takers" and deal with them very differently.

If one could truly seperate those who are actually offended by the name from those who as you put are the "professional-offense takers," we would probably find an even smaller group of individuals who are offended by the Redskins name.

The 'Redskins' moniker didn't come from the actual skin color of the native americans any way. The term came from the red war paint that the Algonquians sported in battle.

It just seems to me that the NAs in this suit aren't really going back and looking at their own history objectively. They can see that they look like the mascot on the helmets and that their skin color may, under the right light, have a reddish tint to it and believe that they are being made fun of, which at this point in time, they most certainly are not.

If they win a pile of money from the NFL, or Daniel Snyder, I'm gonna be first in line to claim my check. After all, my skin turns more red than their's whenever I'm in the sun too long, so they must be making fun of me too.

Doesn't intent play a major part in a slur, racial or otherwise?

Doesn't intent play a major part in a slur, racial or otherwise?
You would think.

i am a patriot and don't feel that the patriots are representing me fairly so i definately want them to change their name