Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
How can the logo be considered offensive when it was created, blessed, and presented by the Native Americans? That would then bring up this point. Are these Non-Native Americans assuming that Native Americans are too stupid to know when they should and should not be offended? Because honestly, that is the biggest message that these people in the PC movement are sending to the Native American community. And if I were a part of the Native American movement, I would strongly voice that these people, telling me what I should and should not be offended by, insults my intelligence and offends me more than some name of a sports team.
This is the argument that the anti-Redskins name group throws to the other side. "So you're telling us that you know more about what the Native Americans should and should not be offended by?" It's the same question to those in the PC movement. The only group whose voice matters in all of this is the Native Americans themselves. And they have been polled and an overwhelming majority has said it is not offensive to them. Why can't people just accept that and move on? Other than having some losing seasons on the field, what injustice has the Washington Redskins really done to the community?
|
That wasn't really the point I was making. I was referring to the point SS made about connecting 'Redskins' to Native Americans. I was saying that if the imagery didn't reflect an Indian, most non Redskins/football fans wouldn't think about it that deeply. For example, what mental image immediately comes with Packer, Steeler or Brown? Probably nothing because it's non-descript. If we just had an R on the side of the helmet, people wouldn't connect the dots as easily and wouldn't be able to layer levels of offended outrage.
You do make a great point however that this fight is being taken up primarily by non-Natives who are trying to make a name for themselves. There are some Native communities involved but as a whole they have bigger issues they are focusing on.