Mascot Issue (AGAIN)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

It clearly is the the most offensive moniker out there, so if in keeping with the zeitgeist they decide to go a more politically correct route, why is that such a tragedy? The Wizards name change was much worse - because the original name was not offensive and the new name and colors were so ridiculously stupid - and we all got over that pretty quickly.

To people who say I dont see what the big deal is with the name, isn't the inverse true as well? That its not that big a deal to change it?

In your opinion it's offensive. In my opinion it's not. I always heard it referred to the face paint Indians used to apply before going into battle. I am aware that the phrase 'red skin' was at one time used as a derogatory term, but there could be two different meanings.

But here's the key -- why should one party who claims to be offended always be in the position to dictate over the offending party and force them to change or cease what they were doing based solely on the perception of the one who was offended?

It's the principle that would get people upset if the offended parties got their way and succeeded in forcing the Redskins to change their name and logo.

Can we all get together as Redskins fans and suddenly become offended at the name "Cowboys" and blue star logos? What would prevent the Cowboys from being obligated to conceed to our demands?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

In your opinion it's offensive. In my opinion it's not. I always heard it referred to the face paint Indians used to apply before going into battle. I am aware that the phrase 'red skin' was at one time used as a derogatory term, but there could be two different meanings.

But here's the key -- why should one party who claims to be offended always be in the position to dictate over the offending party and force them to change or cease what they were doing based solely on the perception of the one who was offended?

It's the principle that would get people upset if the offended parties got their way and succeeded in forcing the Redskins to change their name and logo.

Can we all get together as Redskins fans and suddenly become offended at the name "Cowboys" and blue star logos? What would prevent the Cowboys from being obligated to conceed to our demands?

In my opionion i dont give a crap. It has nothing to do with me, that's the point. The name Redskins has an ethnically specific context which has been deemed to be offensive by many, ergo the repeated efforts to change it. I just think there is something inherently patronizing about someone from outside of that ethnic group dictating to them what they should and should not be offended by. And I don't think I really need to take the time to break down the differences between Cowboys and Redskins right? That argument makes no sense. People arent suddenly becoming offended by the nickname.

But if someone told me that a lawn ornament I was displaying offended them for some reason I didn't understand, my reaction would be, well I think you may be overreacting, however I am going to err on the side of not offending you and get a different ornament. It's just an ornament after all.

As a Jew people frequently make comments that do legitimitaly offend me; but what bothers me more is their response when I point out to them that they should not say whatever it was they said. They respond, ooh, here comes the PC police, everybody gotta get in line. I think many of the responses surrounding this debate are similar.

And by the way, Redskins referers to the scalps of Indians which were rewarded with bounty payments.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

As a Jew people frequently make comments that do legitimitaly offend me; but what bothers me more is their response when I point out to them that they should not say whatever it was they said. They respond, ooh, here comes the PC police, everybody gotta get in line. I think many of the responses surrounding this debate are similar.

And by the way, Redskins referers to the scalps of Indians which were rewarded with bounty payments.

I totally understand how you feel djnemo65. I find it somewhat interesting that so-called civil libertarians who get so riled up about the "PC police" think that no one has the right to get offended.

Again, I'm not all against the Redskins name/logo (in fact I love it), but I can understand why people would be upset by it.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I totally understand how you feel djnemo65. I find it somewhat interesting that so-called civil libertarians who get so riled up about the "PC police" think that no one has the right to get offended.

Again, I'm not all against the Redskins name/logo (in fact I love it), but I can understand why people would be upset by it.

While I'm not really happy if they have to change the name, I really don't care. If it offends people, what is the harm in changing it. The problem, as some see it, is also the logo. While some believe it portrays nobility, it actually portrays "the noble savage" another stereotype that a lot of Native Americans resent. The fact is the name is considered derogatory and the team puts a caricature on the side of the helmet. Whether people wanna make a big deal about it or not is their prerogative. Should they choose to not care, then I don't care. However, if there becomes an uproar over a name change, I won't belittle anyone for feeling the way they do.

I'm part Asian and there are plenty of things that irritate/offend me. I don't feel the need to list them, but there are often caricatures of Asians portrayed and makes me almost irrate. I can understand where people can become offended because it's hard to understand when you're not a member of the race.

Example: Bill Parcells' comment about "Jap plays" really pissed me off. So, everyone making a big deal about Irvin's behavior...Parcells made a racist remark, I'm more upset that he's working for ESPN than anyone has a right to be over Michael Irvin. Well, until he made the comment about Italian Americans.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I just think there is something inherently patronizing about someone from outside of that ethnic group dictating to them what they should and should not be offended by.

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I find it somewhat interesting that so-called civil libertarians who get so riled up about the "PC police" think that no one has the right to get offended.

If both of you go back and look, you will find that nowhere in any of my posts do I imply that people 'don't have a right to be offended'.

I question the right of people who are offended to force someone into action in order to conceed to the offended party's demands.