Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;279667]As I said before, I just dont see this ever happening, but if they are forced to change their name, I guess I'll have to change mine too, ya know just because it implies so many degrading, barbaric, hateful,things.






:yeahright[/QUOTE] Good point. My last name is Cannon, I don't want to offend peace-loving hippies, so I guess I'll have to change it to Lillywhite or some such bullshit.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

Let me just say that there are two arguments being presented here: one is that the name is not that offensive and that not many Native Americans identify at as such. The second is that a minority group being offended by something such as this is overly-PC and problematic. The first is what is known as a cogent argument. The second is an inane argument. We need to distinguish between the two.

If a minority group expresses offense at a comment it is incredibly insensitive for someone outside of the group to question their right to be offended. To say, maybe people with funny hats are offended by the patriots or whatever is beyond stupid, because that's not a minority group, and because they aren't offended anyway. Sensitivity is definitely a good thing. Living here in Japan where there is only one ethnic group, and where those outside of that group are at best illiterate morons and at worst foreign devils, has made me really appreciate how good Americans are at existing within a heterogeneus population.

As to the second argument, it very well may be that it is only a tiny minority of Native Americans offended by the term Redskins. But why then the passion about this issue? Why not say, based on the info I have this name is not really deemed that offensive, and if I find out otherwise then maybe we should change it? Instead you guys are like, screw that, nobody is changing MY football team's name, and its not offensive, and if you think it is you are a liberal PC latte drinker, and Clinton is behind all this, and btw, Native Americans aren't really offended anyway.

So its the fervor that I don't get.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;279548]Am I the only person of Irish decent that's mad at the NBA team in Boston's name? I'm not mad that they're the Celtics (I couldn't care less what they're called), I'm just mad that they mispronounce the word. It should sound like Kel-tic, not Cell-tic. That is all.

As far as the Skin's are concerned, I would still be a fan if they were forced to change the name, and unfortunately I really the team will feel forced to change it at some point in my life time. At first I won't be happy cheering for the Washington Wolfpack or whatever, but I'll adjust.[/quote]

To bad we're talking about basketball. If I was a poor Boston fan the only thing I would be mad about is they SUCK!

Hail to the REDSKINS, if the name offends ya OL WELL! Get over it, we don't have to be politically correct. WE CAN AT LEAST THINK WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

Is it just me or does it seem like it's mainly non-Native Americans who come out and say that the team name is offensive? Granted, there aren't too many, if any, Native Americans in the media but to me it seems like it's a bunch of people who are not actually in the offended group being all self righteous.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

While I'd be disappointed if the team were to change its name, I would only be upset for selfish reasons (memories, history etc). Remaining obstinate for the sake of history isn’t enough to negate change, if necessary.

So what if the Redskins were the Braves in 1932 or that the “redskins” terminology hasn’t been used in a derogatory fashion by the football organization. Times change and we must adhere to the climate. Sheriff made a good point re: Tim Hardaway’s comments… they would have been brushed off in the 80s, but now they’re being denounced in the media.

It is sometimes important to step outside of one’s own perception of how the world should be and into somebody’s else’s… I know it’s hard, but just bear with me. While we see the term “Redskin” as non-offensive because of the context in which the football team uses it (proud warrior, etc), some people attach a stigma to the term itself. The dictionary even states that it’s a derogatory term. Does it matter that the usage of this term is non-offensive? It’s been brought up in this thread that if you replace the “redskin” term with the N-bomb, there would be no discussion at all. Or better yet, let’s replace the N-bomb with something just as offensive, but a little more subtle- like sanbo or pickaninny. As long as we show AA’s in a respectful light with a non-offensive mascot, does that make it any less offensive by keeping the name?

To the argument that most Native Americans accept the Redskins name and mascot: sometimes it’s good to look past the numbers. Perhaps the “10 percent” of Native Americans who are offended and taking action are in the minority for a reason. I remember seeing a chart in the Washington Post somewhere a few years back (I’ll look for it) with a breakdown. As a total group, it is true that most NA’s did not find the team’s use of “redskins” as offensive. Yet looking at a sample breakdown, other tables showed interesting numbers. Native American college students overwhelmingly found the term offensive. I’m not slighting the intelligence of NA’s that did not attend college, but this fact is important. How many full-blooded NAs do you know that actually went to college with you (not people that are from Reston or Springfield that claim 1/8th Cherokee or something)? I can count maybe one NA that I even met at my school- and USC is pretty damn diverse.

The miniscule proportion of NAs that have made it into college or the business world to the overwhelming number that has stayed on the reservation is noticeable. Without getting into historical events that have caused this decimation of an entire people (and yes, the current state of NA is attributable to American government atrocities more than personal self-motivation), the chart numbers tell me this: A huge population of Native Americans have stayed on the rez, including a sizable percentage struggling with extreme poverty and substance addiction. You ask them if they’re offended by the term “redskin” and they’ll probably be indifferent (or ambivalent at most). Most Native Americans aren’t offended because they’re in positions that relegate proactive social movements secondary on their priority list- they're too busy dealing with conditions outlined above to consider the big picture. The small percentage of NAs who find it offensive are college kids or similar aged ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101045_2.html"]as described in this article[/URL]), people who have the time and means to address social issues.

Here’s an analogy (congratulations if you’re still with me) that may help with what i'm trying to convey… Lawn jockeys, blackface and product symbols (aunt jemima, etc.) were considered acceptable by 1950's mainstream America- I’d even venture to say a good percentage of black folks owned offensive caricatures in their own homes back them. I didn’t live through the 40s and 50s, but if you were to poll a group of AAs back then with a current sample re: the offensiveness of the TV show “Amos and Andy”, I truly believe the results would be extremely distinct. Why would more AA people (probably most people) find the show offensive today, but not in the 50s? There’s probably a multitude of reasons: Pre-civil rights, black people were struggling big time with social and economic status issues, mainstream America still viewed them as subservient people, AAs themselves had lower self-worths (self-fulfilling prophecy), etc etc. Back then, black people probably watched “Amos and Andy” themselves because they didn’t have the same looking glasses they have today… the civil rights movement changed all that.

Bringing it back to the Native American struggle, a civil rights movement hasn’t occurred for them to have that same wake up. Sadly, they won’t ever have a movement on the same scale as African Americans. Their people have been damn near destroyed to the point of extinction. So what we’re left with is the “10 percent” that has the ability to make it an issue. It’s easy to say most NAs don’t have a problem with it when only “10 percent are complaining.” But it’s a bigger story than the numbers tell you.

Yes, it would suck to have a name change. Believe it or not, I always argue with one of my closest friends that I don’t want the name change. But I try to step outside the box. jdlea mentioned how pissed he was during the Bill Parcells “Jap” comment awhile back. I also remember the thread on this very same board during that time… Although I’m not Japanese, I am Asian and I also was offended by this… moreso, I was offended at the lack of sensitivity by the majority of posters in that thread. People said America is too “PC” nowadays and that the term “jap” has been used in war vernacular, thus it shouldn’t be considered offensive. After getting a bit heated, positive dialogue was exchanged… and while minds didn’t necessarily switch, some were at least opened enough to step outside the box. As someone who’s been accused of being too “PC” during the Bill Parcells debate, I sympathize with another marginalized group who cites offensiveness (even if I can’t understand it myself).

Nemo brings up a valid question: Why is there such passion for this issue? Are our fans really that angry about changing the redskins' name for the sake of the name, itself? Or is it due to an underlying distaste for “the political correctness agenda.” Remember, just because you or I don’t see why something is offensive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t to someone. You don’t need to slap on a wide-grinned ‘injun face on a helmet or have some drunk frat boy running around with feathers at half court (credit: “Around the Horn”, AJ Adande) to realize something may be inherently wrong with a word (“redskin”) that is suspect, at best.

You get an A if you’re still reading this… and a free soapbox from yours truly.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[quote=itvnetop;279684]While I'd be disappointed if the team were to change its name, I would only be upset for selfish reasons (memories, history etc). Remaining obstinate for the sake of history isn’t enough to negate change, if necessary.

So what if the Redskins were the Braves in 1932 or that the “redskins” terminology hasn’t been used in a derogatory fashion by the football organization. Times change and we must adhere to the climate. Sheriff made a good point re: Tim Hardaway’s comments… they would have been brushed off in the 80s, but now they’re being denounced in the media.

It is sometimes important to step outside of one’s own perception of how the world should be and into somebody’s else’s… I know it’s hard, but just bear with me. While we see the term “Redskin” as non-offensive because of the context in which the football team uses it (proud warrior, etc), some people attach a stigma to the term itself. The dictionary even states that it’s a derogatory term. Does it matter that the usage of this term is non-offensive? It’s been brought up in this thread that if you replace the “redskin” term with the N-bomb, there would be no discussion at all. Or better yet, let’s replace the N-bomb with something just as offensive, but a little more subtle- like sanbo or pickaninny. As long as we show AA’s in a respectful light with a non-offensive mascot, does that make it any less offensive by keeping the name?

To the argument that most Native Americans accept the Redskins name and mascot: sometimes it’s good to look past the numbers. Perhaps the “10 percent” of Native Americans who are offended and taking action are in the minority for a reason. I remember seeing a chart in the Washington Post somewhere a few years back (I’ll look for it) with a breakdown. As a total group, it is true that most NA’s did not find the team’s use of “redskins” as offensive. Yet looking at a sample breakdown, other tables showed interesting numbers. Native American college students overwhelmingly found the term offensive. I’m not slighting the intelligence of NA’s that did not attend college, but this fact is important. How many full-blooded NAs do you know that actually went to college with you (not people that are from Reston or Springfield that claim 1/8th Cherokee or something)? I can count maybe one NA that I even met at my school- and USC is pretty damn diverse.

The miniscule proportion of NAs that have made it into college or the business world to the overwhelming number that has stayed on the reservation is noticeable. Without getting into historical events that have caused this decimation of an entire people (and yes, the current state of NA is attributable to American government atrocities more than personal self-motivation), the chart numbers tell me this: A huge population of Native Americans have stayed on the rez, including a sizable percentage struggling with extreme poverty and substance addiction. You ask them if they’re offended by the term “redskin” and they’ll probably be indifferent (or ambivalent at most). Most Native Americans aren’t offended because they’re in positions that relegate proactive social movements secondary on their priority list- they're too busy dealing with conditions outlined above to consider the big picture. The small percentage of NAs who find it offensive are college kids or similar aged ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101045_2.html"]as described in this article[/URL]), people who have the time and means to address social issues.

Here’s an analogy (congratulations if you’re still with me) that may help with what i'm trying to convey… Lawn jockeys, blackface and product symbols (aunt jemima, etc.) were considered acceptable by mainstream America- I’d even venture to say a good percentage of black folks owned offensive caricatures in their own homes back them. I didn’t live through the 40s and 50s, but if you were to poll a group of AAs back then with a current sample re: the offensiveness of the TV show “Amos and Andy”, I truly believe the results would be extremely distinct. Why would more AA people (probably most people) find the show offensive today, but not back then? There’s probably a multitude of reasons- black people were struggling big time with social and economic status issues pre-civil rights eras, mainstream America still viewed them as subservient people, AAs themselves had lower self-worths (self-fulfilling prophecy), etc etc. Back then, black people probably watched “Amos and Andy” themselves because they didn’t have the same looking glasses they have today… the civil rights movement changed all that.

Bringing it back to the Native American struggle, a civil rights movement hasn’t occurred for them to have that same wake up. Sadly, they won’t ever have a movement on the same scale as African Americans. Their people have been damn near destroyed to the point of extinction. So what we’re left with is the “10 percent” that has the ability to make it an issue. It’s easy to say most NAs don’t have a problem with it when only “10 percent are complaining.” But it’s a bigger story than the numbers tell you.

Yes, it would suck to have a name change. Believe it or not, I always argue with one of my closest friends that I don’t want the name change. But I try to step outside the box. jdlea mentioned how pissed he was during the Bill Parcells “Jap” comment awhile back. I also remember the thread on this very same board during that time… Although I’m not Japanese, I am Asian and I also was offended by this… moreso, I was offended at the lack of sensitivity by the majority of posters in that thread. People said America is too “PC” nowadays and that the term “jap” has been used in war vernacular, thus it shouldn’t be considered offensive. After getting a bit heated, positive dialogue was exchanged… and while minds didn’t necessarily switch, some were at least opened enough to step outside the box. As someone who’s been accused of being too “PC” during the Bill Parcells debate, I sympathize with another marginalized group who cites offensiveness (even if I can’t understand it myself).

Nemo brings up a valid question: Why is there such passion for this issue? Are our fans really that angry about changing the redskins' name for the sake of the name, itself? Or is it due to an underlying distaste for “political correctness BS.” Remember, just because you or I don’t see why something is offensive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t to someone. You don’t need to slap on a wide-grinned ‘injun face on a helmet or have some drunk frat boy running around with feathers during halftime of a U of I game (credit: “Around the Horn”, AJ Adande) to realize something might be wrong with a word (“redskin”) which is suspect, at best.

You get an A if you’re still reading this… and a free soapbox from yours truly.[/quote]

nigga please.....

:)

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[QUOTE=itvnetop;279684]While I'd be disappointed if the team were to change its name, I would only be upset for selfish reasons (memories, history etc). Remaining obstinate for the sake of history isn’t enough to negate change, if necessary.

So what if the Redskins were the Braves in 1932 or that the “redskins” terminology hasn’t been used in a derogatory fashion by the football organization. Times change and we must adhere to the climate. Sheriff made a good point re: Tim Hardaway’s comments… they would have been brushed off in the 80s, but now they’re being denounced in the media.

It is sometimes important to step outside of one’s own perception of how the world should be and into somebody’s else’s… I know it’s hard, but just bear with me. While we see the term “Redskin” as non-offensive because of the context in which the football team uses it (proud warrior, etc), some people attach a stigma to the term itself. The dictionary even states that it’s a derogatory term. Does it matter that the usage of this term is non-offensive? It’s been brought up in this thread that if you replace the “redskin” term with the N-bomb, there would be no discussion at all. Or better yet, let’s replace the N-bomb with something just as offensive, but a little more subtle- like sanbo or pickaninny. As long as we show AA’s in a respectful light with a non-offensive mascot, does that make it any less offensive by keeping the name?

To the argument that most Native Americans accept the Redskins name and mascot: sometimes it’s good to look past the numbers. Perhaps the “10 percent” of Native Americans who are offended and taking action are in the minority for a reason. I remember seeing a chart in the Washington Post somewhere a few years back (I’ll look for it) with a breakdown. As a total group, it is true that most NA’s did not find the team’s use of “redskins” as offensive. Yet looking at a sample breakdown, other tables showed interesting numbers. Native American college students overwhelmingly found the term offensive. I’m not slighting the intelligence of NA’s that did not attend college, but this fact is important. How many full-blooded NAs do you know that actually went to college with you (not people that are from Reston or Springfield that claim 1/8th Cherokee or something)? I can count maybe one NA that I even met at my school- and USC is pretty damn diverse.

The miniscule proportion of NAs that have made it into college or the business world to the overwhelming number that has stayed on the reservation is noticeable. Without getting into historical events that have caused this decimation of an entire people (and yes, the current state of NA is attributable to American government atrocities more than personal self-motivation), the chart numbers tell me this: A huge population of Native Americans have stayed on the rez, including a sizable percentage struggling with extreme poverty and substance addiction. You ask them if they’re offended by the term “redskin” and they’ll probably be indifferent (or ambivalent at most). Most Native Americans aren’t offended because they’re in positions that relegate proactive social movements secondary on their priority list- they're too busy dealing with conditions outlined above to consider the big picture. The small percentage of NAs who find it offensive are college kids or similar aged ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101045_2.html"]as described in this article[/URL]), people who have the time and means to address social issues.

Here’s an analogy (congratulations if you’re still with me) that may help with what i'm trying to convey… Lawn jockeys, blackface and product symbols (aunt jemima, etc.) were considered acceptable by 1950's mainstream America- I’d even venture to say a good percentage of black folks owned offensive caricatures in their own homes back them. I didn’t live through the 40s and 50s, but if you were to poll a group of AAs back then with a current sample re: the offensiveness of the TV show “Amos and Andy”, I truly believe the results would be extremely distinct. Why would more AA people (probably most people) find the show offensive today, but not in the 50s? There’s probably a multitude of reasons: Pre-civil rights, black people were struggling big time with social and economic status issues, mainstream America still viewed them as subservient people, AAs themselves had lower self-worths (self-fulfilling prophecy), etc etc. Back then, black people probably watched “Amos and Andy” themselves because they didn’t have the same looking glasses they have today… the civil rights movement changed all that.

Bringing it back to the Native American struggle, a civil rights movement hasn’t occurred for them to have that same wake up. Sadly, they won’t ever have a movement on the same scale as African Americans. Their people have been damn near destroyed to the point of extinction. So what we’re left with is the “10 percent” that has the ability to make it an issue. It’s easy to say most NAs don’t have a problem with it when only “10 percent are complaining.” But it’s a bigger story than the numbers tell you.

Yes, it would suck to have a name change. Believe it or not, I always argue with one of my closest friends that I don’t want the name change. But I try to step outside the box. jdlea mentioned how pissed he was during the Bill Parcells “Jap” comment awhile back. I also remember the thread on this very same board during that time… Although I’m not Japanese, I am Asian and I also was offended by this… moreso, I was offended at the lack of sensitivity by the majority of posters in that thread. People said America is too “PC” nowadays and that the term “jap” has been used in war vernacular, thus it shouldn’t be considered offensive. After getting a bit heated, positive dialogue was exchanged… and while minds didn’t necessarily switch, some were at least opened enough to step outside the box. As someone who’s been accused of being too “PC” during the Bill Parcells debate, I sympathize with another marginalized group who cites offensiveness (even if I can’t understand it myself).

Nemo brings up a valid question: Why is there such passion for this issue? Are our fans really that angry about changing the redskins' name for the sake of the name, itself? Or is it due to an underlying distaste for “the political correctness agenda.” Remember, just because you or I don’t see why something is offensive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t to someone. You don’t need to slap on a wide-grinned ‘injun face on a helmet or have some drunk frat boy running around with feathers at half court (credit: “Around the Horn”, AJ Adande) to realize something may be inherently wrong with a word (“redskin”) that is suspect, at best.

You get an A if you’re still reading this… and a free soapbox from yours truly.[/QUOTE]

Do I get a little smiley-face sticker along with A? Nice post

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[quote=itvnetop;279684]While I'd be disappointed if the team were to change its name, I would only be upset for selfish reasons (memories, history etc). Remaining obstinate for the sake of history isn’t enough to negate change, if necessary.

So what if the Redskins were the Braves in 1932 or that the “redskins” terminology hasn’t been used in a derogatory fashion by the football organization. Times change and we must adhere to the climate. Sheriff made a good point re: Tim Hardaway’s comments… they would have been brushed off in the 80s, but now they’re being denounced in the media.

It is sometimes important to step outside of one’s own perception of how the world should be and into somebody’s else’s… I know it’s hard, but just bear with me. While we see the term “Redskin” as non-offensive because of the context in which the football team uses it (proud warrior, etc), some people attach a stigma to the term itself. The dictionary even states that it’s a derogatory term. Does it matter that the usage of this term is non-offensive? It’s been brought up in this thread that if you replace the “redskin” term with the N-bomb, there would be no discussion at all. Or better yet, let’s replace the N-bomb with something just as offensive, but a little more subtle- like sanbo or pickaninny. As long as we show AA’s in a respectful light with a non-offensive mascot, does that make it any less offensive by keeping the name?

To the argument that most Native Americans accept the Redskins name and mascot: sometimes it’s good to look past the numbers. Perhaps the “10 percent” of Native Americans who are offended and taking action are in the minority for a reason. I remember seeing a chart in the Washington Post somewhere a few years back (I’ll look for it) with a breakdown. As a total group, it is true that most NA’s did not find the team’s use of “redskins” as offensive. Yet looking at a sample breakdown, other tables showed interesting numbers. Native American college students overwhelmingly found the term offensive. I’m not slighting the intelligence of NA’s that did not attend college, but this fact is important. How many full-blooded NAs do you know that actually went to college with you (not people that are from Reston or Springfield that claim 1/8th Cherokee or something)? I can count maybe one NA that I even met at my school- and USC is pretty damn diverse.

The miniscule proportion of NAs that have made it into college or the business world to the overwhelming number that has stayed on the reservation is noticeable. Without getting into historical events that have caused this decimation of an entire people (and yes, the current state of NA is attributable to American government atrocities more than personal self-motivation), the chart numbers tell me this: A huge population of Native Americans have stayed on the rez, including a sizable percentage struggling with extreme poverty and substance addiction. You ask them if they’re offended by the term “redskin” and they’ll probably be indifferent (or ambivalent at most). Most Native Americans aren’t offended because they’re in positions that relegate proactive social movements secondary on their priority list- they're too busy dealing with conditions outlined above to consider the big picture. The small percentage of NAs who find it offensive are college kids or similar aged ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101045_2.html"]as described in this article[/URL]), people who have the time and means to address social issues.

Here’s an analogy (congratulations if you’re still with me) that may help with what i'm trying to convey… Lawn jockeys, blackface and product symbols (aunt jemima, etc.) were considered acceptable by 1950's mainstream America- I’d even venture to say a good percentage of black folks owned offensive caricatures in their own homes back them. I didn’t live through the 40s and 50s, but if you were to poll a group of AAs back then with a current sample re: the offensiveness of the TV show “Amos and Andy”, I truly believe the results would be extremely distinct. Why would more AA people (probably most people) find the show offensive today, but not in the 50s? There’s probably a multitude of reasons: Pre-civil rights, black people were struggling big time with social and economic status issues, mainstream America still viewed them as subservient people, AAs themselves had lower self-worths (self-fulfilling prophecy), etc etc. Back then, black people probably watched “Amos and Andy” themselves because they didn’t have the same looking glasses they have today… the civil rights movement changed all that.

Bringing it back to the Native American struggle, a civil rights movement hasn’t occurred for them to have that same wake up. Sadly, they won’t ever have a movement on the same scale as African Americans. Their people have been damn near destroyed to the point of extinction. So what we’re left with is the “10 percent” that has the ability to make it an issue. It’s easy to say most NAs don’t have a problem with it when only “10 percent are complaining.” But it’s a bigger story than the numbers tell you.

Yes, it would suck to have a name change. Believe it or not, I always argue with one of my closest friends that I don’t want the name change. But I try to step outside the box. jdlea mentioned how pissed he was during the Bill Parcells “Jap” comment awhile back. I also remember the thread on this very same board during that time… Although I’m not Japanese, I am Asian and I also was offended by this… moreso, I was offended at the lack of sensitivity by the majority of posters in that thread. People said America is too “PC” nowadays and that the term “jap” has been used in war vernacular, thus it shouldn’t be considered offensive. After getting a bit heated, positive dialogue was exchanged… and while minds didn’t necessarily switch, some were at least opened enough to step outside the box. As someone who’s been accused of being too “PC” during the Bill Parcells debate, I sympathize with another marginalized group who cites offensiveness (even if I can’t understand it myself).

Nemo brings up a valid question: Why is there such passion for this issue? Are our fans really that angry about changing the redskins' name for the sake of the name, itself? Or is it due to an underlying distaste for “the political correctness agenda.” Remember, just because you or I don’t see why something is offensive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t to someone. You don’t need to slap on a wide-grinned ‘injun face on a helmet or have some drunk frat boy running around with feathers at half court (credit: “Around the Horn”, AJ Adande) to realize something may be inherently wrong with a word (“redskin”) that is suspect, at best.

You get an A if you’re still reading this… and a free soapbox from yours truly.[/quote]


I ran out of alotted time? GIMME A F! KEEP IT RED. REDSKIN THAT IS!

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[quote=itvnetop;279684]While I'd be disappointed if the team were to change its name, I would only be upset for selfish reasons (memories, history etc). Remaining obstinate for the sake of history isn’t enough to negate change, if necessary.

So what if the Redskins were the Braves in 1932 or that the “redskins” terminology hasn’t been used in a derogatory fashion by the football organization. Times change and we must adhere to the climate. Sheriff made a good point re: Tim Hardaway’s comments… they would have been brushed off in the 80s, but now they’re being denounced in the media.

It is sometimes important to step outside of one’s own perception of how the world should be and into somebody’s else’s… I know it’s hard, but just bear with me. While we see the term “Redskin” as non-offensive because of the context in which the football team uses it (proud warrior, etc), some people attach a stigma to the term itself. The dictionary even states that it’s a derogatory term. Does it matter that the usage of this term is non-offensive? It’s been brought up in this thread that if you replace the “redskin” term with the N-bomb, there would be no discussion at all. Or better yet, let’s replace the N-bomb with something just as offensive, but a little more subtle- like sanbo or pickaninny. As long as we show AA’s in a respectful light with a non-offensive mascot, does that make it any less offensive by keeping the name?

To the argument that most Native Americans accept the Redskins name and mascot: sometimes it’s good to look past the numbers. Perhaps the “10 percent” of Native Americans who are offended and taking action are in the minority for a reason. I remember seeing a chart in the Washington Post somewhere a few years back (I’ll look for it) with a breakdown. As a total group, it is true that most NA’s did not find the team’s use of “redskins” as offensive. Yet looking at a sample breakdown, other tables showed interesting numbers. Native American college students overwhelmingly found the term offensive. I’m not slighting the intelligence of NA’s that did not attend college, but this fact is important. How many full-blooded NAs do you know that actually went to college with you (not people that are from Reston or Springfield that claim 1/8th Cherokee or something)? I can count maybe one NA that I even met at my school- and USC is pretty damn diverse.

The miniscule proportion of NAs that have made it into college or the business world to the overwhelming number that has stayed on the reservation is noticeable. Without getting into historical events that have caused this decimation of an entire people (and yes, the current state of NA is attributable to American government atrocities more than personal self-motivation), the chart numbers tell me this: A huge population of Native Americans have stayed on the rez, including a sizable percentage struggling with extreme poverty and substance addiction. You ask them if they’re offended by the term “redskin” and they’ll probably be indifferent (or ambivalent at most). Most Native Americans aren’t offended because they’re in positions that relegate proactive social movements secondary on their priority list- they're too busy dealing with conditions outlined above to consider the big picture. The small percentage of NAs who find it offensive are college kids or similar aged ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101045_2.html"]as described in this article[/URL]), people who have the time and means to address social issues.

Here’s an analogy (congratulations if you’re still with me) that may help with what i'm trying to convey… Lawn jockeys, blackface and product symbols (aunt jemima, etc.) were considered acceptable by 1950's mainstream America- I’d even venture to say a good percentage of black folks owned offensive caricatures in their own homes back them. I didn’t live through the 40s and 50s, but if you were to poll a group of AAs back then with a current sample re: the offensiveness of the TV show “Amos and Andy”, I truly believe the results would be extremely distinct. Why would more AA people (probably most people) find the show offensive today, but not in the 50s? There’s probably a multitude of reasons: Pre-civil rights, black people were struggling big time with social and economic status issues, mainstream America still viewed them as subservient people, AAs themselves had lower self-worths (self-fulfilling prophecy), etc etc. Back then, black people probably watched “Amos and Andy” themselves because they didn’t have the same looking glasses they have today… the civil rights movement changed all that.

Bringing it back to the Native American struggle, a civil rights movement hasn’t occurred for them to have that same wake up. Sadly, they won’t ever have a movement on the same scale as African Americans. Their people have been damn near destroyed to the point of extinction. So what we’re left with is the “10 percent” that has the ability to make it an issue. It’s easy to say most NAs don’t have a problem with it when only “10 percent are complaining.” But it’s a bigger story than the numbers tell you.

Yes, it would suck to have a name change. Believe it or not, I always argue with one of my closest friends that I don’t want the name change. But I try to step outside the box. jdlea mentioned how pissed he was during the Bill Parcells “Jap” comment awhile back. I also remember the thread on this very same board during that time… Although I’m not Japanese, I am Asian and I also was offended by this… moreso, I was offended at the lack of sensitivity by the majority of posters in that thread. People said America is too “PC” nowadays and that the term “jap” has been used in war vernacular, thus it shouldn’t be considered offensive. After getting a bit heated, positive dialogue was exchanged… and while minds didn’t necessarily switch, some were at least opened enough to step outside the box. As someone who’s been accused of being too “PC” during the Bill Parcells debate, I sympathize with another marginalized group who cites offensiveness (even if I can’t understand it myself).

Nemo brings up a valid question: Why is there such passion for this issue? Are our fans really that angry about changing the redskins' name for the sake of the name, itself? Or is it due to an underlying distaste for “the political correctness agenda.” Remember, just because you or I don’t see why something is offensive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t to someone. You don’t need to slap on a wide-grinned ‘injun face on a helmet or have some drunk frat boy running around with feathers at half court (credit: “Around the Horn”, AJ Adande) to realize something may be inherently wrong with a word (“redskin”) that is suspect, at best.

[B]You get an A if you’re still reading this[/B]… and a free soapbox from yours truly.[/quote]


hahaha...what about a cookie or a gold star? Those are nice too! No, really. Very good post. Lost of points were touched on and then run through with a sword but, you coverd all the bases and laid it out there. Very commendable. My hats off to you sir!

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65;279671]If a minority group expresses offense at a comment it is incredibly insensitive for someone outside of the group to question their right to be offended.[/QUOTE]

I have not heard anyone make that argument. Nobody questions anyone's right to be offended. I question the right that any offended person is entitled to force the offender to stop the offensive behavior.

[QUOTE=djnemo65]To say, maybe people with funny hats are offended by the patriots or whatever is beyond stupid, because that's not a minority group, and because they aren't offended anyway.[/QUOTE]

So only minority groups can be offended?

[QUOTE=djnemo65]...to the second argument, it very well may be that it is only a tiny minority of Native Americans offended by the term Redskins. But why then the passion about this issue? Why not say, based on the info I have this name is not really deemed that offensive, and if I find out otherwise then maybe we should change it?[/QUOTE]

Why the passion? You can't fathom the reason why some people would be upset at the idea that someone has to alter their identity because another person or group doesn't like it?

Who should be the authority on this issue? Should there be a law? Should government force the Redskins to change their name?

Let me give you another example: I used to work at B. Dalton Booksellers about 12 years ago. The store was divided into fiction, nonfiction, science fiction, history, etc. We also had a section titled "African American Interest". It contained books written by Maya Angelou, books about Martin Luther King, that sort of thing. One day a black woman came to me and said she was "offended" at how that particular section of the store was labelled.

Now, because a person claimed to be offended, does the store instantly have the obligation to change it because someone took offense? Does one person or group that claims to be offended become King and wave a magic wand to make what they find offensive go away? What gives them that right? What about the rights of the people to label it the way they want? What about Dan Snyder and the team he owns? Does he lose his property rights because a group, no matter how large or small, doesn't like something about it?

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

Like I said before, I'm sure if people dig enough, they can find just about anything offensive in this world. I would say, political beliefs aside, none of us find the term "Redskin" offensive, because if that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't support a team with such a name, nor would a lot of us buy Redskin merchandise and so forth. After all, it can't be that big of an issue since use Redskins fans cover a variety of races.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[quote=itvnetop;279684]While I'd be disappointed if the team were to change its name, I would only be upset for selfish reasons (memories, history etc). Remaining obstinate for the sake of history isn’t enough to negate change, if necessary.

So what if the Redskins were the Braves in 1932 or that the “redskins” terminology hasn’t been used in a derogatory fashion by the football organization. Times change and we must adhere to the climate. Sheriff made a good point re: Tim Hardaway’s comments… they would have been brushed off in the 80s, but now they’re being denounced in the media.

It is sometimes important to step outside of one’s own perception of how the world should be and into somebody’s else’s… I know it’s hard, but just bear with me. While we see the term “Redskin” as non-offensive because of the context in which the football team uses it (proud warrior, etc), some people attach a stigma to the term itself. The dictionary even states that it’s a derogatory term. Does it matter that the usage of this term is non-offensive? It’s been brought up in this thread that if you replace the “redskin” term with the N-bomb, there would be no discussion at all. Or better yet, let’s replace the N-bomb with something just as offensive, but a little more subtle- like sanbo or pickaninny. As long as we show AA’s in a respectful light with a non-offensive mascot, does that make it any less offensive by keeping the name?

To the argument that most Native Americans accept the Redskins name and mascot: sometimes it’s good to look past the numbers. Perhaps the “10 percent” of Native Americans who are offended and taking action are in the minority for a reason. I remember seeing a chart in the Washington Post somewhere a few years back (I’ll look for it) with a breakdown. As a total group, it is true that most NA’s did not find the team’s use of “redskins” as offensive. Yet looking at a sample breakdown, other tables showed interesting numbers. Native American college students overwhelmingly found the term offensive. I’m not slighting the intelligence of NA’s that did not attend college, but this fact is important. How many full-blooded NAs do you know that actually went to college with you (not people that are from Reston or Springfield that claim 1/8th Cherokee or something)? I can count maybe one NA that I even met at my school- and USC is pretty damn diverse.

The miniscule proportion of NAs that have made it into college or the business world to the overwhelming number that has stayed on the reservation is noticeable. Without getting into historical events that have caused this decimation of an entire people (and yes, the current state of NA is attributable to American government atrocities more than personal self-motivation), the chart numbers tell me this: A huge population of Native Americans have stayed on the rez, including a sizable percentage struggling with extreme poverty and substance addiction. You ask them if they’re offended by the term “redskin” and they’ll probably be indifferent (or ambivalent at most). Most Native Americans aren’t offended because they’re in positions that relegate proactive social movements secondary on their priority list- they're too busy dealing with conditions outlined above to consider the big picture. The small percentage of NAs who find it offensive are college kids or similar aged ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101045_2.html"]as described in this article[/URL]), people who have the time and means to address social issues.

Here’s an analogy (congratulations if you’re still with me) that may help with what i'm trying to convey… Lawn jockeys, blackface and product symbols (aunt jemima, etc.) were considered acceptable by 1950's mainstream America- I’d even venture to say a good percentage of black folks owned offensive caricatures in their own homes back them. I didn’t live through the 40s and 50s, but if you were to poll a group of AAs back then with a current sample re: the offensiveness of the TV show “Amos and Andy”, I truly believe the results would be extremely distinct. Why would more AA people (probably most people) find the show offensive today, but not in the 50s? There’s probably a multitude of reasons: Pre-civil rights, black people were struggling big time with social and economic status issues, mainstream America still viewed them as subservient people, AAs themselves had lower self-worths (self-fulfilling prophecy), etc etc. Back then, black people probably watched “Amos and Andy” themselves because they didn’t have the same looking glasses they have today… the civil rights movement changed all that.

Bringing it back to the Native American struggle, a civil rights movement hasn’t occurred for them to have that same wake up. Sadly, they won’t ever have a movement on the same scale as African Americans. Their people have been damn near destroyed to the point of extinction. So what we’re left with is the “10 percent” that has the ability to make it an issue. It’s easy to say most NAs don’t have a problem with it when only “10 percent are complaining.” But it’s a bigger story than the numbers tell you.

Yes, it would suck to have a name change. Believe it or not, I always argue with one of my closest friends that I don’t want the name change. But I try to step outside the box. jdlea mentioned how pissed he was during the Bill Parcells “Jap” comment awhile back. I also remember the thread on this very same board during that time… Although I’m not Japanese, I am Asian and I also was offended by this… moreso, I was offended at the lack of sensitivity by the majority of posters in that thread. People said America is too “PC” nowadays and that the term “jap” has been used in war vernacular, thus it shouldn’t be considered offensive. After getting a bit heated, positive dialogue was exchanged… and while minds didn’t necessarily switch, some were at least opened enough to step outside the box. As someone who’s been accused of being too “PC” during the Bill Parcells debate, I sympathize with another marginalized group who cites offensiveness (even if I can’t understand it myself).

Nemo brings up a valid question: Why is there such passion for this issue? Are our fans really that angry about changing the redskins' name for the sake of the name, itself? Or is it due to an underlying distaste for “the political correctness agenda.” Remember, just because you or I don’t see why something is offensive, that doesn’t mean it isn’t to someone. You don’t need to slap on a wide-grinned ‘injun face on a helmet or have some drunk frat boy running around with feathers at half court (credit: “Around the Horn”, AJ Adande) to realize something may be inherently wrong with a word (“redskin”) that is suspect, at best.

You get an A if you’re still reading this… and a free soapbox from yours truly.[/quote]


I would argue that change isnt necessary in this case.

And it does matter, alot, that the team has not used the name in a derogatory manner, ever. And yes times change and we must adhere to the climate. Climates such as, civil/equal rights, smoking in public places and so on. And Hardaways comments, the guy was being honest. I know alot of the male population feel the same way to one degree or another. But in this climate, you just cant do that.

You can spin your slight on Amer. Indian intelligence all you want. But your whole sprew about only the educated Amer. Indians can really understand or care [I]is offensive[/I] my friend. That is PC at its best right there. Well I could argue that the Indians on the reservations are being 'real' about their thoughts and feelings, whereas the educated ones have been brainwashed and persuaded by our liberal/pc colleges.
Let me make some copies of your thoughts and pass it around some of the reservations and lets see what they think about it.

And yes Im totaly against changing for the sake of the name AND my distaste for the PC agenda.
And its not that I cant step outside the box, cause I do it all the time. But we cant submit to every whim of someones feelings being hurt or offended. This country has waaaaaay too many different cultures to truly be pc for all people. For every act that satisfys one group , its gonna piss off another. So its never ending. Fight for things that make this country better. Changing the names and mascots of schools and pro teams just doesnt rank high on my list of things this country really needs to do.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;279717]
You can spin your slight on Amer. Indian intelligence all you want. But your whole sprew about only the educated Amer. Indians can really understand or care [I]is offensive[/I] my friend. That is PC at its best right there. Well I could argue that the Indians on the reservations are being 'real' about their thoughts and feelings, whereas the educated ones have been brainwashed and persuaded by our liberal/pc colleges.
Let me make some copies of your thoughts and pass it around some of the reservations and lets see what they think about it.
[/QUOTE]

You may want to re-read that paragraph you're citing in my original post. Intelligence was not mentioned as a factor contributing to sensitivity- I specifically stated that it shouldn't be. You're using a straw man to paint a picture I never created.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;279717]And Hardaways comments, the guy was being honest. I know alot of the male population feel the same way to one degree or another. But in this climate, you just cant do that.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps that's a good thing?

In any event, I think there are good arguments on both sides of the board. I hate to be so wishy washy, but I truly understand why some would want the name changed and others wouldn't.

Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN)
 

[quote=itvnetop;279733]You may want to re-read that paragraph you're citing in my original post. Intelligence was not mentioned as a factor contributing to sensitivity- I specifically stated that it shouldn't be. You're using a straw man to paint a picture I never created.[/quote]

well I did as you suggested. I re-read the paragraph and to be honest, nothing changed. sorry.