Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

itvnetop · 02-22-2007, 07:51 PM

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 (as described in this article), 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.

02-22-2007, 07:51 PM	#80
itvnetop Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Age: 48 Posts: 3,007	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 (as described in this article), 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.