1985fan is dead wrong about the term Redskin
edmundfitzgerald
Posts: 4,306 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
For those of you who would get tired reading through the entire thread, 1985fan claims that REDSKIN is a racial slur, but
what he fails to understand is that over 91% of today's native American Indians do not feel that way.
Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (e.g. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.
what he fails to understand is that over 91% of today's native American Indians do not feel that way.
Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (e.g. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.
0
Comments
"The Oneida Indian Nation commissioned a poll that shows 59% of adults in the Washington region say that American Indians would have a right to feel offended if called "redskin.""
C'mon axtell. That's like taking a poll in Texas about Barack Obama.
Or taking a poll in Philadelphia about George Bush.
You can't be serious.
<< <i>Updated data
"The Oneida Indian Nation commissioned a poll that shows 59% of adults in the Washington region say that American Indians would have a right to feel offended if called "redskin."" >>
So, doesn't this just mean a bunch of Caucasians acknowledge American Indians have a right to feel offended? It doesn't seem to show that any American Indian actually does feel offended.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
I personally have no issue with the team name Redskins, but understand and can appreciate why some may. In Queens, NY, where I grew up, the St. John's basketball team was known as the "Red Men" when I was growing up, but changed the name aboiut 25 years ago to "Red Storm". I recall there was some resistance to the change at the time, but a quarter century later, no one even mentions it or cares.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
opinion rests upon a poll 11 years old.
<< <i>Updated data
"The Oneida Indian Nation commissioned a poll that shows 59% of adults in the Washington region say that American Indians would have a right to feel offended if called "redskin."" >>
The majority of Americans , especially tax paying Americans are against many things in life . Most working people , but not all , find the concept and societal use of the term , Entitlements a major offense against reality . If polls are your criteria for whether something is acceptable or not , then join the party . --- Sonny
<< <i>
<< <i>Updated data
"The Oneida Indian Nation commissioned a poll that shows 59% of adults in the Washington region say that American Indians would have a right to feel offended if called "redskin."" >>
The majority of Americans , especially tax paying Americans are against many things in life . Most working people , but not all , find the concept and societal use of the term , Entitlements a major offense against reality . If polls are your criteria for whether something is acceptable or not , then join the party . --- Sonny >>
What?
<< <i>You're never going to please everyone. We all have our 2 cents on whether its a racial slur or not. The name is not going to be changed anytime soon, so get used to it. >>
Says you. The name is going to be changed within 5 years, likely much sooner. Anything that takes the discussion away from concussions the NFL and Gooddell are going to be on board for. Think of how long the story would run for when it happens.
<< <i>
<< <i>You're never going to please everyone. We all have our 2 cents on whether its a racial slur or not. The name is not going to be changed anytime soon, so get used to it. >>
Says you. The name is going to be changed within 5 years, likely much sooner. Anything that takes the discussion away from concussions the NFL and Gooddell are going to be on board for. Think of how long the story would run for when it happens. >>
Thanks for the laugh.
<< <i>What racial slur? >>
I know you're being intentionally droll, but the term 'Redskin' is indeed a racial slur. Tell me, kind sir, why are you such a proponent of Washington keeping this name? What vested interest do you have in 'Redskin' continuing to be used to identify the team?
<< <i>I like how you criticized 85 fan for his poll yet the basis of your own
opinion rests upon a poll 11 years old. >>
I like how you inaccurately described what I did.
I first asked him a question.
I then made a comparison of the two polls we were referring to.
I then mentioned if he was serious (or joking).
Next time you care to make a comment, please comment accurately about what is actually going on. Thank you in advance.
Unfortunately, Annenberg's methodology confirms that these polls aren't very reliable. Among its demographic problems:
It's well-known that relying on telephone landlines skews the results in a conservative direction. Older, conservative people tend to stick with landlines. Younger, liberal people tend to use cellphones.
Moreover, a significant subset of Indians living on reservations don't have any phone service. They obviously weren't included in the survey.
Alaska is about 13% Native. Excluding Alaska means excluding 100,000 Natives or 2-3% of the total Native population.
Meanwhile, excluding Hawaii means excluding one of the most liberal states. We can presume that Hawaiians are more sensitive to mascot issues than residents of other states.
Asking people to self-identify as Indians probably skews the results toward wannabes with a small amount of Indian blood. We don't know how they'd answer, but it isn't necessarily the same way as actual Indians.
Perhaps a bigger problem is the nature of the question asked: "As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?" Among its problems:
The two options aren't symmetrical. Respondents could think the name is offensive but doesn't bother them, or it bothers them but it isn't offensive. Better would be to ask, "Is it offensive or not offensive?" or "Does it bother or not bother you?"
Offensiveness is only one aspect of the name. One can object to it on other grounds besides its being offensive.
Survey Criticisms
polls over 10 years old. Not sure why you do not get the connection, never mind, actually I do.
<< <i>Actually I described most accurately what you did, the basis of your point is based on
polls over 10 years old. Not sure why you do not get the connection, never mind, actually I do. >>
Actually, you inaccurately described what I said when you said I criticized 1985fan.
There was no criticism whatsoever in my response.
Thank you in advance for being more accurate in your future posts.
<< <i>I like how you criticized 85 fan for his poll yet the basis of your own
opinion rests upon a poll 11 years old. >>
And please explain to us what has happened over the past 11 years to change the minds of the 91%.
How many news stories have you heard about schoolchildren being verbally abused by being called Redskin. Adults ? Tribes ?
There has been no racial slurs of the name Redskin in the news at all.
Therefore, public opinion should not have changed..... because Redskin is not even a racial slur. It is a name of a team. Not sure why the 9% don't understand that,
but the best teachers always tell us that 10% just never get it. 90% do get it.
What a shocker - a poll commissioned by the very tribe that is trying to get the name changed yields vastly different results from polls commissioned by impartial entities.
First off, why does anyone NEED to show that changing it is a "bad idea"? The only argument that proponents of a name change can come up with is that it (likely) offends (some) people. Some polls say perhaps 9%, some more, but regardless of the stats...of that number, how many are actual Washington fans, go to games, or are even football fans for that matter?
Last I checked, for the time being at least...this is still America and the owner of the team has the right to name it what he wants. You can choose to patronize them or not. It's called freedom of choice. Given the choice of keeping an 80 year old name that the overwhelming majority of the team's ACTUAL FANS want to keep (in an area well known as a supposed progressive enclave I might add), or- costing himself millions renaming a team to appease a tiny handful of people (and a bunch of liberal white guilt bandwagon jumpers), most of whom have no interest in either the team or football in general... seems a no brainer. It's a bad business idea, a bad financial idea, and all over something that, if it were so egregious as claimed, people have had decades to do something about.
But now the professional activist crowd sees that there's a potential chance to possibly squeeze a few bucks out of it...so here we are.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>That said, I'd still like to see a coherent argument from someone opposed to changing the name. I see a lot of 'The PC Police blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah socialists blah blah Obama blah Kenya blah blah' and so on, but no carefully detailed argument for why changing the name is a bad idea.
First off, why does anyone NEED to show that changing it is a "bad idea"? The only argument that proponents of a name change can come up with is that it (likely) offends (some) people. Some polls say perhaps 9%, some more, but regardless of the stats...of that number, how many are actual Washington fans, go to games, or are even football fans for that matter?
Last I checked, for the time being at least...this is still America and the owner of the team has the right to name it what he wants. You can choose to patronize them or not. It's called freedom of choice. Given the choice of keeping an 80 year old name that the overwhelming majority of the team's ACTUAL FANS want to keep (in an area well known as a supposed progressive enclave I might add), or- costing himself millions renaming a team to appease a tiny handful of people (and a bunch of liberal white guilt bandwagon jumpers), most of whom have no interest in either the team or football in general... seems a no brainer. It's a bad business idea, a bad financial idea, and all over something that, if it were so egregious as claimed, people have had decades to do something about.
But now the professional activist crowd sees that there's a potential chance to possibly squeeze a few bucks out of it...so here we are. >>
OK, I'll play along.
1) Who's arguing that the owner doesn't have the right to keep the existing name? Please share. From what I understand, there have been arguments in favor of changing it, but there have been no arguments demanding that Snyder go to jail, or be forced to sell, or otherwise punished if he chooses to keep the existing name.
2) Who are these 'professional activists'? I know, 'liberals blah blah socialists blah blah language police blah blah blah Nanny State blah blah blah'-- what I'm asking for are names, not right-wing radio buzzwords. If there really is a band of organized professional activists out there aggressively lobbying for this change I'd like to know who they are so that I can avoid them in the future.
3) Why do you, specifically, think changing the name is a bad idea? Personally I'm more-or-less indifferent; I think the name is tacky, and it feels weird to say it, but I also don't think it's the end of the world if they choose to keep it. If I'm Dan Snyder I'd probably change it, because we've reached the point where the name is something of a distraction, and because it's probably only a matter of time before Goodell finally pulls him aside and tells him he's going to need to do it anyway. That having been said, I'd like to know why so many people are vehemently opposed to changing the name.
<< <i>
OK, I'll play along.
1) Who's arguing that the owner doesn't have the right to keep the existing name? Please share. From what I understand, there have been arguments in favor of changing it, but there have been no arguments demanding that Snyder go to jail, or be forced to sell, or otherwise punished if he chooses to keep the existing name.
2) Who are these 'professional activists'? I know, 'liberals blah blah socialists blah blah language police blah blah blah Nanny State blah blah blah'-- what I'm asking for are names, not right-wing radio buzzwords. If there really is a band of organized professional activists out there aggressively lobbying for this change I'd like to know who they are so that I can avoid them in the future.
3) Why do you, specifically, think changing the name is a bad idea? Personally I'm more-or-less indifferent; I think the name is tacky, and it feels weird to say it, but I also don't think it's the end of the world if they choose to keep it. If I'm Dan Snyder I'd probably change it, because we've reached the point where the name is something of a distraction, and because it's probably only a matter of time before Goodell finally pulls him aside and tells him he's going to need to do it anyway. That having been said, I'd like to know why so many people are vehemently opposed to changing the name. >>
Well said. I agree. What harm does it do to change the name? Just that many more jerseys will be sold because everybody will need the new one!
Who's arguing that the owner doesn't have the right to keep the existing name?
...isn't that the entire argument by the righteously indignant here...that it's offensive and he has no right to maintain this offensive name? If it's not, then why are we having this conversation?
Who are these 'professional activists'?
I was speaking generally (and I think you knew that) but it's based on real experience...in my local area we had two similar instances a few years ago, both with one conspicuous activist who it turns out wasn't a member of the tribe(s) but rather a compensated spokesman who was regularly paid to go to alumni boards, boards of trustees etc. of schools with Indian-themed names, mascots etc. to try to stir up antagonism where there had been none...I think his last name was Haney...this was over team mascots that weren't offensive in the slightest-in fact the overwhelming majority of the students and fans wanted to keep them... but the school administrators caved to the vocal micro-minority for fear of bad publicity and loss of endowment dollars.
Why do you, specifically, think changing the name is a bad idea?
I don't think it's either a good or bad idea. The name simply exists and the team owner has every right to keep it or change it. What I have a problem with is a group of people who seem to be on a crusade-"I'm here to stand up for and save you whether you want it or not" and making assumptions that an entire race of people (that by and large don't care about the issue no matter what poll you favor) need their help to address a perceived slur.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>Who's arguing that the owner doesn't have the right to keep the existing name?
...isn't that the entire argument by the righteously indignant here...that it's offensive and he has no right to maintain this offensive name? If it's not, then why are we having this conversation?
Who are these 'professional activists'?
I was speaking generally (and I think you knew that) but it's based on real experience...in my local area we had two similar instances a few years ago, both with one conspicuous activist who it turns out wasn't a member of the tribe(s) but rather a compensated spokesman who was regularly paid to go to alumni boards, boards of trustees etc. of schools with Indian-themed names, mascots etc. to try to stir up antagonism where there had been none...I think his last name was Haney...this was over team mascots that weren't offensive in the slightest-in fact the overwhelming majority of the students and fans wanted to keep them... but the school administrators caved to the vocal micro-minority for fear of bad publicity and loss of endowment dollars.
Why do you, specifically, think changing the name is a bad idea?
I don't think it's either a good or bad idea. The name simply exists and the team owner has every right to keep it or change it. What I have a problem with is a group of people who seem to be on a crusade-"I'm here to stand up for and save you whether you want it or not" and making assumptions that an entire race of people (that by and large don't care about the issue no matter what poll you favor) need their help to address a perceived slur. >>
We are having this conversation because some people want the name changed, and some people are screaming bloody murder at the thought that Washington Redskins may have to drop their Native-American logo and nickname. People are saying that the name should be changed- they're not questioning Dan Snyder's legal right to refuse to do so.
As for point #2, a compensated spokesman is not the same as a 'professional activist' (whatever that is). People routinely hire professional spokesmen all the time to argue on their behalf. If you're blaming this Haney guy for stirring things up you're barking up the wrong tree; instead, you should be blaming whoever hired him. If that means you need to blame the tribe that hired him, well, I'll let you decide if you're comfortable with that. But let's dispense with this frankly nutty idea that there are wild bands of liberals roaming the country just looking for a hot-button issue to exploit that will let them gleefully pit neighbor v. neighbor.
As for point #3, again-- you're misrepresenting the issue. Nobody advocating for the change is arguing that 'Native Americans need me to save them, so here I am". They're simply arguing that 'Redskin' is a really tacky nickname, and that it's a little embarrassing to have a team represented by that nickname in our country's most popular sports league. Now, they may be acting a little shrill, and I agree that's annoying, but that's the gist of it. And really, I don't see any compelling argument to the contrary. If you're arguing that Redskin ISN'T a tacky nickname that's disrespectful of Native Americans then I don't really know what else to say, except that I can virtually assure you that you'll be on the wrong side of history when it's all said and done.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The conqueror's write the history books and make the rules, and there is no question that this is the case with American Indians. Heck, most people still believe that the 'Plymouth Rock Thanksgiving' had a happy ending.
It is however, usually an unfinished story we are told, as the Plymouth Indians were eventually forced off their land, or given the 'opportunity' to assimilate into the culture of the settlers. In fact, the son of the Indian Chief at Plymouth Rock eventually got the privilege of having his severed head put on display in the settler's camp.
This story has been played out in countless examples, in all parts of the country for hundreds of years.
Looking at that example, if you were running a sports team, and you were picking a way to honor American Indians, in what way does using a derogatory team name honor the man who had his severed head put on display? Certainly there is a better way to honor the race, if "honoring" them is your argument.
Since the conqueror's make the rules, and have no idea what it feels like to be the conquered, they cannot possibly empathize with people who may feel offended by the use of a derogatory term. They can use 'Fighting Irish', or all those other examples to try and say, "see I'm not offended, so neither should they"...but the reality is, there IS no similar race or group of people in our country to have received the penalties that the Native American Indians did. Even today American Indian people have the highest rate of poverty in the United States.
So why such a strong backlash from sports fans when American Indians(no matter the percentage) are pointing out the faults in using derogatory terms to name them? Is it really that big a deal to change the name of a sports team?
Is the resistance to change for tradition sake? For market brand sake? Teams change colors. Teams change uniforms. Teams change logos. They even change names(California Angels to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim). Yet, no backlash. No fan riot. So what happens when these changes are made (other than the fact that teams get to sell their new jersey's and apparel and make more money)? Do the past championship trophies get erased? No. Nothing happens, people move on with the change.
The reality has to be, is that people don't want minority groups chipping away at what 'is theirs'. If that isn't the reason, then there really is no viable reason for such resistance to changing the name of a sports team. It should be a moot point...just like it is when teams change stuff all the time.
<< <i>"Yankee" was used as a term of derision describing Northerners during the Civil War. Let's all band together to change that offensive team name also.. >>
I agree. Many children lost their daddy's, and many wives lost their husbands, because of the damn Yankees who went to war with the South.
More blood was spilled under that name than any other name in history in America, and it is offensive to some in the South to this day.
Just ask those who still fly the Rebel flag.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Yankee" was used as a term of derision describing Northerners during the Civil War. Let's all band together to change that offensive team name also.. >>
I agree. Many children lost their daddy's, and many wives lost their husbands, because of the damn Yankees who went to war with the South.
More blood was spilled under that name than any other name in history in America, and it is offensive to some in the South to this day.
Just ask those who still fly the Rebel flag. >>
As explained above, not the same. Not even close to the same. In our country, there is no same or similar in the case at hand.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Yankee" was used as a term of derision describing Northerners during the Civil War. Let's all band together to change that offensive team name also.. >>
I agree. >>
Sounds like you have now changed your mind and believe team names like these should be changed
Boopotts put it best: I don't think the name should be changed because it offends me, I would like to see it changed because I find it tacky and distasteful. The number of people who think that about the Redskins exceeds those who think that about the Yankees by a far greater amount. But when it does reach the point where people dislike the Redskins as much as the Yankees, telephoto and edmund will have more support and more people will listen to their side
<< <i>"Yankee" was used as a term of derision describing Northerners during the Civil War. Let's all band together to change that offensive team name also. Same with any other potentially offensive college or high school team name like Rebels, Trojans (I'm offended because that's the name of a prophylactic and it sends the wrong message to our youth!)...and how about Fighting Irish...that's a stereotype by its very definition. Let's all band together...and anyone thinking otherwise has to be a right wing wacko who just doesn't understand the struggle. >>
Once you stoop to using a false equivalency you've lost the argument. But don't worry, arguments on these boards are like buses. Another will be along in 20 minutes or so.
Coca Cola has used the name "Coke" for its world wide known product, even though the work "Coke" also means "cocaine" [in fact the original Coca Cola had cocaine as an ingredient]. Look at all of the damage that cocaine has done to people over the centuries.
Many people find the idea of using cocaine to be horrible and offensive. So much so that it would not surprise me to see some of these people so offended and upset over the use of the name "Coke" used by Coca Cola as the name of its produce that they could easily start a movement/campaign to force Coca Cola to drop the name "Coke".
If such a movement started, would any of those who object to the Washington NFL team using the term "Redskins" jump on the bandwagon to get Coca Cola to drop Coke? If not, why not? What is the difference [is "Redskin" a more horrible name than "Coke"? and if so, why"]?
BTW I could not care less about whether or not Washington and Dan Snyder drop the name "Redskins" or not. The thing that bugs me is the idea that if a group complains loud enough about another (i.e. Dan Snyder and his team), the other (Dan Synder and his team) should be expected to just cave in and should be viewed as the bad guy if he does not. An analogy is free speech. If one truly has a right to free speech, he or she can say whatever they want and no one can do anything to stop them. Their speech may be vile [and they may suffer greatly from speaking thus] but they have the right to say what they want (even if they offend everyone else on the planet).
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i> What is the difference [is "Redskin" a more horrible name than "Coke"? and if so, why"]? >>
Drugs are good, racism is bad
<< <i>I stopped reading 1985fan posts a long time ago. Very little to add, just a drama queen. >>
Thanks for your insight and adding so much to the conversation. Appreciated.
As far as the compensation thing that keeps getting brought up, who exactly is asking for a monetary handout here? I have yet to see a single shred of evidence of Native Americans wanting to get paid off. Period. Anyone suggesting that they aren't truly offended at the continued use of the racial slur 'Redskin' and instead are doing this as a money grab is as foolish as it gets.
Most telling in this ENTIRE debate is that there has yet to be a single, solitary post explaining why those fighting so vehemently fighting for the Redskins to keep their name are doing so. Worse? None of you are even Redskins fans! Your entire argument stems from the idea that you can't stand a minority actually having some rights and a voice to affect change in this country. You're so used to, as a white male, getting your way and having the loudest voice in EVERY situation, that it freaks you out so much your only reaction is to completely freak out.
Look, folks, the term Redskin is a racial slur. Having a team in the NFL continuing to use this term in 2013 is inexcusable. No matter how much ranting and raving you do about 'professional activists' and complaining about 9% of people being to affect change, the team name Redskin is going away. It may not be this year, but it's going to happen. If you don't think the commissioner has the stones to make this happen and put the best interests (both short term and long term) of the league first, then you really haven't been paying attention.
As far as the term 'Yankee' being equally offensive, I have to ask, you can't be serious can you? Oh wait I get it, you think that if you trivialize the argument over other team names, it will kill the outrage over the racial slur Redskin. Sorry, pal, but that's NOT going to happen.
<< <i>How about changing the name "Coke".
Coca Cola has used the name "Coke" for its world wide known product, even though the work "Coke" also means "cocaine" [in fact the original Coca Cola had cocaine as an ingredient]. Look at all of the damage that cocaine has done to people over the centuries.
Many people find the idea of using cocaine to be horrible and offensive. So much so that it would not surprise me to see some of these people so offended and upset over the use of the name "Coke" used by Coca Cola as the name of its produce that they could easily start a movement/campaign to force Coca Cola to drop the name "Coke".
If such a movement started, would any of those who object to the Washington NFL team using the term "Redskins" jump on the bandwagon to get Coca Cola to drop Coke? If not, why not? What is the difference [is "Redskin" a more horrible name than "Coke"? and if so, why"]?
BTW I could not care less about whether or not Washington and Dan Snyder drop the name "Redskins" or not. The thing that bugs me is the idea that if a group complains loud enough about another (i.e. Dan Snyder and his team), the other (Dan Synder and his team) should be expected to just cave in and should be viewed as the bad guy if he does not. An analogy is free speech. If one truly has a right to free speech, he or she can say whatever they want and no one can do anything to stop them. Their speech may be vile [and they may suffer greatly from speaking thus] but they have the right to say what they want (even if they offend everyone else on the planet). >>
The Coke example doesn't apply at all. Cocaine isn't a person, and if they were, they weren't exterminated (mostly unjustly).
If the following things are understood:
1). Native Americans were/are a conquered people, losing more than any other race or people in the history of our country, and were in fact exterminated.
2). Prejudices have existed against them, one being that they were savages, and were considered closer to animals than to humans.
3). Terms like 'Redskins' are negative names given to describe and reinforce the above negative stereotype.
AND, when you recognize that changing the name of a sports team is not a big deal at all, and in fact, happens already(including the name, colors, emblems, etc...), THEN it shouldn't be a worry for anyone when a group of people try to get the name changed(regardless of how small the group is), because that group happens to be correct in pointing out the injustice being done to them.
If they were INCORRECT in their assertions, then you may have a point of worry.
Everyone that keeps putting up these examples are way off base. Fighting Irish...had they been exterminated from our land, reduced to living on the worst parcels of land, and were currently the poorest population in our country(mainly because of those injustices), then maybe one may start to getting close to making an accurate comparison.
As it stands now, there is NO OTHER example in our country that can be used that can compare to that of the Indians, none.
As for people being allowed to say whatever they want, fine. Sure, they can, but without the forum for opposing views to be heard, and the subsequent discussion, those words can lead to convincing masses of people into doing various atrocities that have occurred through history. Just because they are a minority of the population, it doesn't mean people should go around saying or doing whatever they want to them because they outnumber them...it just isn't right.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Too many people are conditioned to dig their heels in and be proud of the fact that "I am not changing my mind." Changing your mind is a sign of intelligence. It simply shows that a person is open to new information.
The best point you make is that if people were aware of the information, and not just the sound byte, some people's minds my change.
The percentage will undoubtedly rise, as it did with other unpopular ideas that came to fruition, and now are (almost) universally accepted.
Time moves slowly, but with the help of information, it does eventually move.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
If they were 'exterminated' then this discussion would be moot. As of 2010 there were 2.9 million full blood American Indian and Native Alaskan residents in the US.
2). Prejudices have existed against them, one being that they were savages, and were considered closer to animals than to humans.
Yeah. In 1895. I'd certainly like to see verifiable proof that there is any significant sentiment like that today (outside of some fringe klan style hate group). Certainly not in mainstream America.
3). Terms like 'Redskins' are negative names given to describe and reinforce the above negative stereotype.
Hmm. Then, assuming I buy into your assertions and the Redskins' original owner was prejudiced and bigoted, and further buying the assertion that Redskin can be nothing but a slur... then why would he spend his personal fortune to publicize a race that he supposedly hates so?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>1). Native Americans were/are a conquered people, losing more than any other race or people in the history of our country, and were in fact exterminated.
If they were 'exterminated' then this discussion would be moot. As of 2010 there were 2.9 full blood American Indian and Native Alaskan residents in the US.
2). Prejudices have existed against them, one being that they were savages, and were considered closer to animals than to humans.
Yeah. In 1895. I'd certainly like to see verifiable proof that there is any significant sentiment like that today (outside of some fringe klan style hate group). Certainly not in mainstream America.
3). Terms like 'Redskins' are negative names given to describe and reinforce the above negative stereotype.
Hmm. Then, assuming I buy into your assertions and the Redskins' original owner was prejudiced and bigoted, and further buying the assertion that Redskin can be nothing but a slur... then why would he spend his personal fortune to publicize a race that he supposedly hates so? >>
Telephoto, I said they were exterminated, not extinct. The ironic thing is, that with so many teams and mascots being named after them, it sometimes gives the impression that they are extinct.
Proof that there are stereotypes still existing? Look, you will find it. It is there. People in the west that live near them on reservations still have similar thoughts on them. They currently have the highest rate of poverty in the US. More proof? A bunch of sports teams use them as mascots. Mascots are subordinates. Being a mascot is closer to being somebody's 'bit@CH', than it is to honoring them.
By relegating them to mascots, using derogatory nicknames to describe them, and using war-like symbols and caricatures to portray them, they are being reduced to 'less than human'. Knowing that they were EXTERMINATED, it is like rubbing salt in the wound. As part of the 'conquering' people, maybe a little more honor should be displayed.
The owner of the Redskins spent his fortune to buy an NFL team where he can make more of a fortune. He didn't buy it to publicize a race. His buying them didn't make him a bigot. Please don't put words into my mouth.
One can guess why the name Redskins is given to a sports team however, because it represents something to fear...the savage. That is why sports teams use those names to begin with, and why they don't use something like the Washington Daisy's.
Could being a warrior be an honor? Of course. But when that is all they are portrayed as, and the accompanying 'savage' goes along with it, then add in that they are an oppressed people...using them as mascots will only add to them being relegated as a mascot.
A mascot. You would like if some guy stole your wife, took your house, and then put a bobblehead of you on his mantel honoring you as a 'worthy' opponent? Would that make you feel better knowing you were honored on his fire place mantel, while you sat in your one room apartment writing stacks of alimony checks?
Because the majority of people against whom it is a slur don't find it offensive. High school teams at largely Native American schools use the term Redskin. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel bad for a group of people if the majority of those people aren't upset by the supposed "oppression".
Link
Life is full of injustices. Some are real, some are imagined, and some are fabricated. I believe that most everyone has one aspect of their life or one event in their life where they feel they have drawn the proverbial "short end of the stick". Maybe they are disabled, or have lost parents at young age, or have been swindled out of their life savings. All of those are injustices to varying degrees.
Some have to deal with the injustice of listening to a non-threatening use of the word Redskin. Until this recent PC push, barely anybody knew it was offensive, and certainly weren't using it in a derogatory way. This isn't like Riley Cooper or Richie Incognito, who used racial slurs in a threatening or derogatory nature.
Just because a very loud minority contingent makes a lot of noise to change something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, and that we should give in. It's like saying the Occupy Movement represented the entire 99%, and that because they were very loud, we should have just taxed the bejesus out of the rich, so that we could afford more entitlement programs to push our country further into the abyss.
Bottom line - until the Indian population presents a united front against the use of the word, the rest of us should stay out of it.
I disagree with your bottom line whole heartedly. To each his own I understand. However, I would rather thing that us in power can help those with less power. Plus, most Native Americans are so poor that they are worried about putting food on their table. The percentage of rich casino owners is very small. Most are extremely poor. Let's help them out. Why not?
<< <i>
Bottom line - until the Indian population presents a united front against the use of the word, the rest of us should stay out of it. >>
But we're not staying out of it. The racial slur is RIGHT THERE being used, daily. The fact that a majority of Americans are conditioned to accept it doesn't make it any less offensive.
But forget all of that!! This excerpt below speaks volumes:
"It was a white man who applied it to this particular football team: Owner George Preston Marshall chose the name in 1932 partly to honor the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was known as an Indian.
“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in June to 10 members of Congress who challenged the name.
Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.”
And Dietz, the namesake Redskin, may not have even been a real Indian. Dietz served jail time for charges that he falsely registered for the draft as an Indian in order to avoid service. According to an investigation by the Indian Country Today newspaper, he stole the identity of a missing Oglala Sioux man."
Hmm, sounds like a swell honest and honorable guy, huh! NOT! Good grief!