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. >>
Very good point.
At one time, there were no real child labor laws either...good thing other people, besides the children, made a stand for them.
redskin red·skin [red-skin] noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. a North American Indian.
Look, no matter what you want to think, it's widely considered a racial slur. I don't care one bit that the team name has been around for so long, that just further illustrates my point that conditioning to accept it doesn't make it any less acceptable. And still, after all this time, and debate, and energy spent by proponents for keeping the name, not a single, solitary bit of evidence for supporting the name has some out.
redskin red¡¤skin [red-skin] noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. a North American Indian.
Look, no matter what you want to think, it's widely considered a racial slur. I don't care one bit that the team name has been around for so long, that just further illustrates my point that conditioning to accept it doesn't make it any less acceptable. And still, after all this time, and debate, and energy spent by proponents for keeping the name, not a single, solitary bit of evidence for supporting the name has some out. >>
This just shows how a term can lose it's meaning over time. "Red Skin" is not a racial term, it's origins come from Native Americans as a way to identify themselves. Quite literally, they called themselves "red skins". When I hear the name I associate it with the origin and it is hard to register any negative connotation becuase, frankly, there is none. I have never heard it used in negative light (and niether have you or anyone else here), the reason, because it is not a negative word. It's like calling me white. I guess if you saying in an aweful way it could sound bad, but any world can sound bad.
It seems like this conversation has been going on here for a while now and you're still stuck in your ways. I suggest reading the research article that Ives Goddards of the Smithsonian Institute published, "I am a Red Skin" which dives into the linguistic origins of the term and its true meaning. If you need some sort of evidence to support the name is as innocent as the term "white" than please read the link below. On the other hand, I have yet to hear any sort of compelling argument that this term is a racial slur or insult other than, "it just is".
<< <i><<<Telephoto, you haven't told us yet, why are you so beholden to the racist slur 'Redskin'? Why are you such in favor of a professional football team continuing to use this racist term? You (and every single other backer of the term) has yet to do so. I wonder why that is?>>>
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".
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 just thought that post bore repeating, as it sums up my feelings rather well, particularly the last three sentences.
So, once again, the proponents of keeping the racial slur 'Redskin' do nothing whatsoever to suggest why they want the term kept. Their only defense so far has been 'PC police!' and 'it's not a racist term!' neither of which addresses why they want the most popular sport in America to continue to use a racial slur to identify one of their teams.
The most egregious part of this entire process? That the defenders of the term feel it's ok to continue to use because 'just' 9% of respondents (to a flawed survey, no less) felt offended. It's shocking that you would be willing to dismiss out of hand that segment of the population who feels their likeness, history, and racial identity can be used in that manner.
It's obvious those who want to defend this likeness and racial slur are doing so simply out of spite. Either you are a blatant racist, or you are so against a minority 'getting over' on the white majority you can't think properly. Whatever your motivations for wanting to continue the use of racist terms in everyday language, perhaps you should sit down and actually think why you are so for 'Redskin' continuing as an everyday term in 2013 America.
<< <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.
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? >>
Ok...I'll bite. Tell me, exactly how does changing the name of a football team help poor Native Americans get more food?
Gotta love the hand-wringing white guilt... They are just too poor and ignorant to know they need saving. We know better than they do. Even if they virtually aren't upset at all by the thing in question, they are too poor and ignorant to know that they're upset about it... so we must make them all as upset about it as possible, so we can show them how we can save them.
If I'm of Indian descent I'd sure as heck be more offended by THAT than any stupid team name.
Instead of burying your head in the sand, do your own research and you will see that the term is not a "racist" term and it was originally more of a term of endearment among Native Americans. It was the PC police ( very few if any that were Native American) with little knowledge of the true history of the name that made it offensive. Aside from one tribe pushing the agenda, no other Native Americans seem to really care or are offended by it.
<< <i>So, once again, the proponents of keeping the racial slur 'Redskin' do nothing whatsoever to suggest why they want the term kept. Their only defense so far has been 'PC police!' and 'it's not a racist term!' neither of which addresses why they want the most popular sport in America to continue to use a racial slur to identify one of their teams.
The most egregious part of this entire process? That the defenders of the term feel it's ok to continue to use because 'just' 9% of respondents (to a flawed survey, no less) felt offended. It's shocking that you would be willing to dismiss out of hand that segment of the population who feels their likeness, history, and racial identity can be used in that manner.
It's obvious those who want to defend this likeness and racial slur are doing so simply out of spite. Either you are a blatant racist, or you are so against a minority 'getting over' on the white majority you can't think properly. Whatever your motivations for wanting to continue the use of racist terms in everyday language, perhaps you should sit down and actually think why you are so for 'Redskin' continuing as an everyday term in 2013 America. >>
I guess you didn't read the article I suggested.
The reason I am "against" it being changed is because I want what I believe is right, good and just to prevail. I care about those 9%, but I do not think the minority should have a say over the majority simply because they are the loudest in the room. We live in a democracy, let's have a democracy prevail. We have all been on the losing side of a fight, we have all been offeneded and have not gotten our way. I do not wish for some lobbying group to gain support solely becuase they are under the lie they represent the Native American people. I find that insulting. Heck, I'm offeneded. I do not think a small group of individuals pretending to represent an entire peoples should dictate the name of a private business. If they do not like it, don't give them their business. It is as simple as that.
I find nothing wrong with the name, if that's racist, fine. Call it whatever. The name "Redskin" does not mean anything to me other than a name Natives used to call themselves. If Dan Snyder wants to change it then I think he should, but I am under the strong impression that he does not want to. Why should he get bullied into changing the name of his company? He owns it. Why should he get harassed, labelled as a racist and tormented because the name of HIS football team means something to him. He has done nothing wrong. It's a shame that one lobbying group can have so much power over one person.
If everything we live by were only decided by the "majority," that would be sad. Most things in life, even in democracies, are not put up for a vote where the majority rules. Minority groups (not only ethnic, religious, nationality) would likely never be treated equally in any situation, if that were the case.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Walking around this afternoon to vote and I saw the signs indicating the place to vote, and the signs were in both English and Spanish, and it brought me back to this discussion. The same folks who rail against signs/voice mails being in both English and Spanish are likely the same folks railing against a minority of Native Americans having a right to affect change.
Throughout American history, white men have long been the gatekeepers as it were. From the founding fathers (which were a group of wealthy, white, men) on down the line, white men have held the keys to wealth and power and freedom. At each and every point in which that status has been questioned (slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc.) there's been a very fierce opposition to it from this same very group - wealthy, white, men. A fierce opposition to a minority being given the same voice, the same rights as these men were handed simply through being born.
This discussion is no different. The same folks who would have denounced civil rights as it being a minority of the population are also trying to minimize the impact of the racist term 'Redskin' because they feel it doesn't affect enough people. Or they don't know anyone personally who has been affected by it. History is your guide, folks, and change happens all the time in regards to folks considered to be a 'minority'.
As far as this nonsense of it being a 'private' company, you really should educate yourself before you go spewing that around any further. The NFL enjoys tax exempt status - why do you think people fall all over themselves to secure an NFL franchise? Throw in Virginia giving the Redskins over $6 million to move their training camp facility (taxpayer funds, mind you), and throw in another $70+ million of taxpayer funds for their stadium, and you have something is far, far removed from a 'private' company.
<< <i>As far as this nonsense of it being a 'private' company, you really should educate yourself before you go spewing that around any further. The NFL enjoys tax exempt status - why do you think people fall all over themselves to secure an NFL franchise? Throw in Virginia giving the Redskins over $6 million to move their training camp facility (taxpayer funds, mind you), and throw in another $70+ million of taxpayer funds for their stadium, and you have something is far, far removed from a 'private' company. >>
$70 million is a bargain to have FedEx field built in your town. Every large company/team/production recieves some sort of local/state tax credit. This does not mean they are suddenly responsible for the opinion of a lobbying group backed by millionaire casino owners. I'm not sure what the NFL's tax-exempt status has to do with this argument, but if you're inferring that this makes the Washington Redskins not a private company, you're wrong.
The NFL is technically a trade association of the 32 individual team ownerships who agree to a set of bylaws governing the rules, marketing, scheduling, and contractual agreements with any merchandise that has the NFL name or logo. I used "ownerships" instead of owners because many teams have multiple owners with one holding majority control. Others have only 1 owner. All those teams are privately held companies, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers who are publically owned and managed by a board of directors elected by shareholders.
The teams are NOT tax exempt. The NFL is. The Washington Redskins pay their taxes just like everyone else (more than making up for that petty $70 million they got from the state). Please don't get into an argument with me about tax-exempt organizations.
<< <i> $70 million is a bargain to have FedEx field built in your town. Every large company/team/production recieves some sort of local/state tax credit. This does not mean they are suddenly responsible for the opinion of a lobbying group backed by millionaire casino owners. I'm not sure what the NFL's tax-exempt status has to do with this argument, but if you're inferring that this makes the Washington Redskins not a private company, you're wrong. >>
The tax exempt status means all the money the NFL receives that it funnels to its teams are tax exempt, and it's relevant that this means it is NOT a private company. As far as a 'bargain', that has nothing to do with the fact that taxpayer funds were used, again destroying the notion that this is a 'private' company.
<< <i>The NFL is technically a trade association of the 32 individual team ownerships who agree to a set of bylaws governing the rules, marketing, scheduling, and contractual agreements with any merchandise that has the NFL name or logo. I used "ownerships" instead of owners because many teams have multiple owners with one holding majority control. Others have only 1 owner. All those teams are privately held companies, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers who are publically owned and managed by a board of directors elected by shareholders. >>
This has nothing to do whatsoever with the argument that taxpayer funds are being used to publicly use a racist slur.
<< <i>The teams are NOT tax exempt. The NFL is. The Washington Redskins pay their taxes just like everyone else (more than making up for that petty $70 million they got from the state). Please don't get into an argument with me about tax-exempt organizations. >>
I guess you'll do anything to get away from defending the use of a racial slur in publicly funded stadiums.
<< <i>Caucasian men are the problem. Thanks for clearing that up. >>
They're not the problem, but you cannot possibly argue against white men throughout American history have been barriers to social reform. This time it's no different. I wonder if Dan Snyder would have issue if there was a football team that used a Jewish slur, much like he seems to enjoy his continued use of a Native American slur to make millions of dollars from. There's an excellent satirical post on this very topic on the onion.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>It was brought up to refute the (false) notion that the Redskins team is a private company. >>
Did you not just read my other post. The only team that isn't a privately held company are the Packers. The only tie they have to the NFL (a not-for-profit trade association that benefits from a tax-exempt status) is membership dues. This does not discount the fact that they are a private company. Geez.
<< <i>Walking around this afternoon to vote and I saw the signs indicating the place to vote, and the signs were in both English and Spanish, and it brought me back to this discussion. The same folks who rail against signs/voice mails being in both English and Spanish are likely the same folks railing against a minority of Native Americans having a right to affect change.
Throughout American history, white men have long been the gatekeepers as it were. From the founding fathers (which were a group of wealthy, white, men) on down the line, white men have held the keys to wealth and power and freedom. At each and every point in which that status has been questioned (slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc.) there's been a very fierce opposition to it from this same very group - wealthy, white, men. A fierce opposition to a minority being given the same voice, the same rights as these men were handed simply through being born.
This discussion is no different. The same folks who would have denounced civil rights as it being a minority of the population are also trying to minimize the impact of the racist term 'Redskin' because they feel it doesn't affect enough people. Or they don't know anyone personally who has been affected by it. History is your guide, folks, and change happens all the time in regards to folks considered to be a 'minority'.
As far as this nonsense of it being a 'private' company, you really should educate yourself before you go spewing that around any further. The NFL enjoys tax exempt status - why do you think people fall all over themselves to secure an NFL franchise? Throw in Virginia giving the Redskins over $6 million to move their training camp facility (taxpayer funds, mind you), and throw in another $70+ million of taxpayer funds for their stadium, and you have something is far, far removed from a 'private' company. >>
We have a black president, who was voted in by mostly white men and women. Without that majority vote, he would have surely lost. Our first African American female secretary of state was appointed by a far right white man. Our first black supreme court justice was appointed by a far right white man. Many gays who serve in important roles in society have been appointed by white men.
I really don't know what your point is. The white American man has done a great job in bringing justice to many people in America.
How have the black leaders done in Africa ? How did the Native Americans do in progressing their society in America ? I doubt you've done your homework on how they treated each other. They did have a reputation you know when our founding fathers descended here. Believe me ,they earned it. How have the Chinese done in progressing their society with human rights ? How about the dark skinned Muslims ? How are they doing ?
Looks like you have a problem with the "white man", who has pretty much built the greatest country in the world in the United States of America. I think you owe a bit of gratitude to the founding fathers. If you do not, may I suggest you move to Africa, and have yourself subjugated to the African black rulers. Perhaps you will have a sudden change of heart. Just a guess.
<< <i>Caucasian men are the problem. Thanks for clearing that up. >>
They're not the problem, but you cannot possibly argue against white men throughout American history have been barriers to social reform. . >>
You cannot possibly argue ??? Are you kidding me ?
Uh, what white man was behind freeing the slaves in the south ? Do you want me to tell you what President that was ? What white man brought in Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier in baseball ? What prominent white men supported Martin Luther King ? What group of prominent white men (and universities (run by white men)) got behind the woman's right to vote ? What Ivy League schools promoted the advancement of women in American culture ? Who ran these Ivy League schools, and taught in their classroom ?
It doesn't matter what the color of a man's skin is. What matters is the idea behind a movement, an if that idea is just or unjust.
If caucasian men are not the problem, then why did you bring up your point that throughout American history white men have been the gatekeepers; white men have held the keys to wealth, power and freedom; and white men have put up a fierce opposition to person who are not white men being given equal status?
What exactly is your point?
Edmundfiztgerald makes good points in his most recent replies.
Many of the advances in our society that have broken down barriers facing people who are not white men have come about as a result of the actions of white men, many times in the face of stiff opposition from white men on the progressive, left side of the political spectrum.
The idea of "white men" = "evil" and "people other than white men - good" is just plain stupid.
Throughout history people across the globe (of all genders, races, religions, etc.) have committed unspeakable acts of evil. Evil is not limited to one particular subset of humanity. At the same time people across the globe have acted in a manner that is nothing less than saintly, helping others. Goodness is not limited to one particular subset of humanity.
Maybe you are just afflicted with "white guilt" (if you are a white man). If so, you can expiate your guilt by giving away all of your property, money and resources to those less fortunate and you can devote all of your time (for free) to helping those less fortunate. If that is not enough to expiate any white guilt you have you can do whatever it is that is possible to change you from a human who is a white man to a human who is not a white man. Good luck with that expiation thing.
Getting back to the issue of the name Redskins and whether it should be dropped and discarded by the football team and Dan Snyder, it is annoying beyond belief that simply because someone (or some group who purports to represent or advocate for someone) complains that they are offended by the name, the team and/or its owner must immediately comply with the demand to drop ithe name. If the team and/or its owner want to continue to use the name, that is there right to do so. If by continuing to use the name the tide of public opinion turns against the team and its owner to the point where the revenue generated by the team drops, then the market will put pressure on the team and its owner to drop the name. If the team and its owner still refuses, then who cares if the team fails financially and goes out of business. Some other team will replace it and will use a different name.
Would you still insist on Dan Snyder no longer using the name Redskins if he was simply standing on a tree stump in the public square exercising his right to free speech by shouting out in a loud voice the the Washington Redskins are playing the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night and please buy a ticket to see the game? Or do you think it is ok to prohibit Mr. Snyder from saying whatever he wants on the tree stump in the public square because you are ofended (or someone else, somewhere may be either now or in the future offended)?
<< <i> Getting back to the issue of the name Redskins and whether it should be dropped and discarded by the football team and Dan Snyder, it is annoying beyond belief that simply because someone (or some group who purports to represent or advocate for someone) complains that they are offended by the name, the team and/or its owner must immediately comply with the demand to drop ithe name. >>
Complaints against Indian mascots go back to the 70s. This is not immediate
<< <i> If the team and/or its owner want to continue to use the name, that is there right to do so. If by continuing to use the name the tide of public opinion turns against the team and its owner to the point where the revenue generated by the team drops, then the market will put pressure on the team and its owner to drop the name. If the team and its owner still refuses, then who cares if the team fails financially and goes out of business. Some other team will replace it and will use a different name. >>
If caucasian men are not the problem, then why did you bring up your point that throughout American history white men have been the gatekeepers; white men have held the keys to wealth, power and freedom; and white men have put up a fierce opposition to person who are not white men being given equal status? >>
Not *all* white men were the problem, but a majority did once stand in opposition to the issues I quoted. What started as a minority opinion became the majority (much like the outcry over use of the racial slur 'Redskin' will be).
[q Many of the advances in our society that have broken down barriers facing people who are not white men have come about as a result of the actions of white men, many times in the face of stiff opposition from white men on the progressive, left side of the political spectrum. >>
White men in the minority, yes.
<< <i>The idea of "white men" = "evil" and "people other than white men - good" is just plain stupid. >>
And totally not what I stated. But if you want to casually forget American history, and see it was by and large white men who have stood in the way of progressive rights in this country, I can't stop you. Just don't expect me to be so willfully ignorant.
<< <i>Throughout history people across the globe (of all genders, races, religions, etc.) have committed unspeakable acts of evil. Evil is not limited to one particular subset of humanity. At the same time people across the globe have acted in a manner that is nothing less than saintly, helping others. Goodness is not limited to one particular subset of humanity. >>
Good thing I wasn't talking about human history but, as I clearly stated, American history.
<< <i>Maybe you are just afflicted with "white guilt" (if you are a white man). If so, you can expiate your guilt by giving away all of your property, money and resources to those less fortunate and you can devote all of your time (for free) to helping those less fortunate. If that is not enough to expiate any white guilt you have you can do whatever it is that is possible to change you from a human who is a white man to a human who is not a white man. Good luck with that expiation thing. >>
It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with seeing those with less of a voice being given the right to have their opinions known. As far as volunteerism, I already do, but thanks for the idea!
<< <i>Getting back to the issue of the name Redskins and whether it should be dropped and discarded by the football team and Dan Snyder, it is annoying beyond belief that simply because someone (or some group who purports to represent or advocate for someone) complains that they are offended by the name, the team and/or its owner must immediately comply with the demand to drop ithe name. If the team and/or its owner want to continue to use the name, that is there right to do so. If by continuing to use the name the tide of public opinion turns against the team and its owner to the point where the revenue generated by the team drops, then the market will put pressure on the team and its owner to drop the name. If the team and its owner still refuses, then who cares if the team fails financially and goes out of business. Some other team will replace it and will use a different name. >>
Why is it 'annoying' to you? What possible vested interest do you have in the continuation of the term 'Redskin' for a football team? How can it possible 'annoy' you?
<< <i>Would you still insist on Dan Snyder no longer using the name Redskins if he was simply standing on a tree stump in the public square exercising his right to free speech by shouting out in a loud voice the the Washington Redskins are playing the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night and please buy a ticket to see the game? Or do you think it is ok to prohibit Mr. Snyder from saying whatever he wants on the tree stump in the public square because you are ofended (or someone else, somewhere may be either now or in the future offended)? >>
Of course not, because that is his first amendment right to do so. However, that has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with the conversation at hand.
Why is it 'annoying' to you? What possible vested interest do you have in the continuation of the term 'Redskin' for a football team? How can it possibly 'annoy' you?
Broken record's still skipping, I see. Just because others disagree with your stance does not by default mean they have some hidden agenda or vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It isn't about that- and someone less dense would have figured that out by now. If you bother to actually read some of the replies, most people are simply tired of those who have appointed themselves spokesmen and would-be saviors for a group of people who by and large frankly just don't care about the issue. It is a fact that this is a virtual non-issue for the vast majority of Native Americans-something you choose to deny. But still this loud micro-minority comprised of mostly NON-Native people have decided that they need to "stand up" for folks who neither NEED nor WANT them to. And that is what is annoying, at least to this poster.
<< <i> Broken record's still skipping, I see. Just because others disagree with your stance does not by default mean they have some hidden agenda or vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It isn't about that- and someone less dense would have figured that out by now. >>
One could the say exactly the same about those proponents of the continued use of a racial slur for a football team name. They are so against the idea of the 'PC Police' (whoever they are) upending their hold on the world that they lash out - without knowing why.
<< <i>If you bother to actually read some of the replies, most people are simply tired of those who have appointed themselves spokesmen and would-be saviors for a group of people who by and large frankly just don't care about the issue. It is a fact that this is a virtual non-issue for the vast majority of Native Americans-something you choose to deny. But still this loud micro-minority comprised of mostly NON-Native people have decided that they need to "stand up" for folks who neither NEED nor WANT them to. And that is what is annoying, at least to this poster. >>
What's annoying is you (and your ilk who want to keep using racist terms in sports) have YET, after all this time, come up with a single, solitary reason for the continued use of this racist term. No, 'that's how it's been for years!' is not a reason, nor is 'the PC police always try to get in the way!' isn't one either.
You know why and others haven't said why you are so feverish in your defense of the continued use of racist terms? Because you have no defense. You have no argument. You and others like you continue to dance around the issue, throwing up analogies that are completely flawed, but in the end, your defense is completely and utterly wrong.
<< <i>Why is it 'annoying' to you? What possible vested interest do you have in the continuation of the term 'Redskin' for a football team? How can it possibly 'annoy' you?
Broken record's still skipping, I see. Just because others disagree with your stance does not by default mean they have some hidden agenda or vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It isn't about that- and someone less dense would have figured that out by now. If you bother to actually read some of the replies, most people are simply tired of those who have appointed themselves spokesmen and would-be saviors for a group of people who by and large frankly just don't care about the issue. It is a fact that this is a virtual non-issue for the vast majority of Native Americans-something you choose to deny. But still this loud micro-minority comprised of mostly NON-Native people have decided that they need to "stand up" for folks who neither NEED nor WANT them to. And that is what is annoying, at least to this poster. >>
Why is any of that relevant? You're conflating two different issues-- your opinion of the protesters, and the validity of their argument.
Let me give you a personal example which may highlight this distinction. There are fringe groups in the American South that would love to see the 'South' (which is generally termed to mean the states of the Confederacy) secede from the Union. Now, on a personal level these people annoy me very much; I doubt I have much at all in common with them, and I take pains to ensure that I don't have to spend personal time around them. However, on this particular issue we're in total lockstep, since I too would love to see the South secede. I don't like the messenger, but I agree with the message.
Another example would be state-funded abortions. I'm pro-choice; however, I understand why some people are not, and it would drive me nuts if I were pro-life and knew my tax dollars were subsidizing abortions. So, while I generally have very little time or energy for the beliefs of people on the religious right, I agree that their money shouldn't go to something which they stand so strongly against.
Coming back to the Redskins issue: You can find yourself worn out by the kind of people who rise up in protest against issues like this, and that's fine-- in fact, on some level I'm inclined to agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the crux of their argument, which is that a team that's a) located in our nation's capital, and b) plays in our most popular professional sport, is named the freaking 'Redskins'. That's just embarrassing. If a wild eyed hippie drenched in patchouli said it was embarrassing i would agree with them, and if a Bible-thumping nutbag said it was embarrasing I would agree with them as well. The thing to focus on is the issue- not your opinions of the various people taking sides in the issue.
Isn't that where educated men feel it's ok for a woman to kill her baby with a beating heart inside her own womb ?
But that same woman can be sent to jail if she murders that child with a beating heart when it's outside her womb ? >>
"Rule 1) This is not a public forum. This is a PSA forum paid for by PSA and provided for PSA customers to exchange information regarding trading cards and/or memorabilia. We make the rules; this is not a democracy. Rule 5) If you have nothing to contribute to a thread or the forum as a whole, then do not post. Snide remarks and other negative comments will result in your losing your ability to post. No more warnings. Rule 6) This forum is about collecting trading cards and/or memorabilia. If your post is not directly related to trading cards and/or memorabilia, then this is the wrong forum. Do not post it or your posting privileges may be removed. Rule 8) This forum is provided for the education and sharing of information, not as a personal soapbox. If you want to learn and share information about trading cards and/or memorabilia, you are welcome here. ""
Isn't that where educated men feel it's ok for a woman to kill her baby with a beating heart inside her own womb ?
But that same woman can be sent to jail if she murders that child with a beating heart when it's outside her womb ? >>
Everyone draws a line somewhere. You, apparently, draw it at the point of conception. I draw it someplace later than that, but some point before the third trimester.
That aside, we're not arguing the abortion issue here. If you want to gnash your teeth over political matters that have no sports-related theme there are plenty of message boards out there that will happily accommodate you.
Why is any of that relevant? You're conflating two different issues-- your opinion of the protesters, and the validity of their argument.
No...I'm stating that the argument becomes moot when by and large the overwhelming majority of those at the center of the argument-you know-Native Americans- DON'T CARE ABOUT THE STUPID NAME OF A FOOTBALL TEAM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. The protesters in this matter, most of whom are non-NA, base their whole protest around the idea that all NA people are supposedly offended by the team name... and when it's pointed out to them that the vast majority aren't in the slightest, their response is that NA people are too ignorant, poor and/or dumb to know that they should be offended. Wow. Like I said before...if I were a native American person I'd certainly be more irked by that attitude than the name of a silly football team that doesn't affect my life in the slightest.
Comments
<< <i>Im a white guy. If someone today wanted to name a team the "whiteskins" it wouldnt bother me in the least. >>
Of course it wouldn't, because 'whiteskin' isn't a racial slur.
<< <i>
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. >>
Very good point.
At one time, there were no real child labor laws either...good thing other people, besides the children, made a stand for them.
<< <i>Of course it wouldn't, because 'whiteskin' isn't a racial slur. >>
And niether is Redskin.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course it wouldn't, because 'whiteskin' isn't a racial slur. >>
And niether is Redskin. >>
If you think that 'Redskin' isn't a racist slur, then there's no hope for you. The very definition of the word 'redskin' is considered as such:
Link 1
red·skin
noun ˈred-ˌskin
Definition of REDSKIN
usually offensive
: american indian
Link 2
ed·skin (rĕdskĭn′
Share: red·skin
n.
Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.
Link 3
redskin
red·skin
[red-skin]
noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.
Look, no matter what you want to think, it's widely considered a racial slur. I don't care one bit that the team name has been around for so long, that just further illustrates my point that conditioning to accept it doesn't make it any less acceptable. And still, after all this time, and debate, and energy spent by proponents for keeping the name, not a single, solitary bit of evidence for supporting the name has some out.
<< <i>Im a white guy. If someone today wanted to name a team the "whiteskins" it wouldnt bother me in the least. >>
Really? That's all you got? I would pause next time before hitting the reply button.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course it wouldn't, because 'whiteskin' isn't a racial slur. >>
And niether is Redskin. >>
If you think that 'Redskin' isn't a racist slur, then there's no hope for you. The very definition of the word 'redskin' is considered as such:
Link 1
red¡¤skin
noun ˈred-ˌskin
Definition of REDSKIN
usually offensive
: american indian
Link 2
ed¡¤skin (rĕdªÀskĭn¡ä
Share: red¡¤skin
n.
Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.
Link 3
redskin
red¡¤skin
[red-skin]
noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.
Look, no matter what you want to think, it's widely considered a racial slur. I don't care one bit that the team name has been around for so long, that just further illustrates my point that conditioning to accept it doesn't make it any less acceptable. And still, after all this time, and debate, and energy spent by proponents for keeping the name, not a single, solitary bit of evidence for supporting the name has some out. >>
This just shows how a term can lose it's meaning over time. "Red Skin" is not a racial term, it's origins come from Native Americans as a way to identify themselves. Quite literally, they called themselves "red skins". When I hear the name I associate it with the origin and it is hard to register any negative connotation becuase, frankly, there is none. I have never heard it used in negative light (and niether have you or anyone else here), the reason, because it is not a negative word. It's like calling me white. I guess if you saying in an aweful way it could sound bad, but any world can sound bad.
It seems like this conversation has been going on here for a while now and you're still stuck in your ways. I suggest reading the research article that Ives Goddards of the Smithsonian Institute published, "I am a Red Skin" which dives into the linguistic origins of the term and its true meaning. If you need some sort of evidence to support the name is as innocent as the term "white" than please read the link below. On the other hand, I have yet to hear any sort of compelling argument that this term is a racial slur or insult other than, "it just is".
I am a Red Skin
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i><<<Telephoto, you haven't told us yet, why are you so beholden to the racist slur 'Redskin'? Why are you such in favor of a professional football team continuing to use this racist term? You (and every single other backer of the term) has yet to do so. I wonder why that is?>>>
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 just thought that post bore repeating, as it sums up my feelings rather well, particularly the last three sentences.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The most egregious part of this entire process? That the defenders of the term feel it's ok to continue to use because 'just' 9% of respondents (to a flawed survey, no less) felt offended. It's shocking that you would be willing to dismiss out of hand that segment of the population who feels their likeness, history, and racial identity can be used in that manner.
It's obvious those who want to defend this likeness and racial slur are doing so simply out of spite. Either you are a blatant racist, or you are so against a minority 'getting over' on the white majority you can't think properly. Whatever your motivations for wanting to continue the use of racist terms in everyday language, perhaps you should sit down and actually think why you are so for 'Redskin' continuing as an everyday term in 2013 America.
<< <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.
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? >>
Ok...I'll bite. Tell me, exactly how does changing the name of a football team help poor Native Americans get more food?
Gotta love the hand-wringing white guilt... They are just too poor and ignorant to know they need saving. We know better than they do. Even if they virtually aren't upset at all by the thing in question, they are too poor and ignorant to know that they're upset about it... so we must make them all as upset about it as possible, so we can show them how we can save them.
If I'm of Indian descent I'd sure as heck be more offended by THAT than any stupid team name.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>So, once again, the proponents of keeping the racial slur 'Redskin' do nothing whatsoever to suggest why they want the term kept. Their only defense so far has been 'PC police!' and 'it's not a racist term!' neither of which addresses why they want the most popular sport in America to continue to use a racial slur to identify one of their teams.
The most egregious part of this entire process? That the defenders of the term feel it's ok to continue to use because 'just' 9% of respondents (to a flawed survey, no less) felt offended. It's shocking that you would be willing to dismiss out of hand that segment of the population who feels their likeness, history, and racial identity can be used in that manner.
It's obvious those who want to defend this likeness and racial slur are doing so simply out of spite. Either you are a blatant racist, or you are so against a minority 'getting over' on the white majority you can't think properly. Whatever your motivations for wanting to continue the use of racist terms in everyday language, perhaps you should sit down and actually think why you are so for 'Redskin' continuing as an everyday term in 2013 America. >>
I guess you didn't read the article I suggested.
The reason I am "against" it being changed is because I want what I believe is right, good and just to prevail. I care about those 9%, but I do not think the minority should have a say over the majority simply because they are the loudest in the room. We live in a democracy, let's have a democracy prevail. We have all been on the losing side of a fight, we have all been offeneded and have not gotten our way. I do not wish for some lobbying group to gain support solely becuase they are under the lie they represent the Native American people. I find that insulting. Heck, I'm offeneded. I do not think a small group of individuals pretending to represent an entire peoples should dictate the name of a private business. If they do not like it, don't give them their business. It is as simple as that.
I find nothing wrong with the name, if that's racist, fine. Call it whatever. The name "Redskin" does not mean anything to me other than a name Natives used to call themselves. If Dan Snyder wants to change it then I think he should, but I am under the strong impression that he does not want to. Why should he get bullied into changing the name of his company? He owns it. Why should he get harassed, labelled as a racist and tormented because the name of HIS football team means something to him. He has done nothing wrong. It's a shame that one lobbying group can have so much power over one person.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
Minority groups (not only ethnic, religious, nationality) would likely never be treated equally in any situation, if that were the case.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Throughout American history, white men have long been the gatekeepers as it were. From the founding fathers (which were a group of wealthy, white, men) on down the line, white men have held the keys to wealth and power and freedom. At each and every point in which that status has been questioned (slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc.) there's been a very fierce opposition to it from this same very group - wealthy, white, men. A fierce opposition to a minority being given the same voice, the same rights as these men were handed simply through being born.
This discussion is no different. The same folks who would have denounced civil rights as it being a minority of the population are also trying to minimize the impact of the racist term 'Redskin' because they feel it doesn't affect enough people. Or they don't know anyone personally who has been affected by it. History is your guide, folks, and change happens all the time in regards to folks considered to be a 'minority'.
As far as this nonsense of it being a 'private' company, you really should educate yourself before you go spewing that around any further. The NFL enjoys tax exempt status - why do you think people fall all over themselves to secure an NFL franchise? Throw in Virginia giving the Redskins over $6 million to move their training camp facility (taxpayer funds, mind you), and throw in another $70+ million of taxpayer funds for their stadium, and you have something is far, far removed from a 'private' company.
<< <i>This discussion is no different. >>
Oh I would say it's a little different
<< <i>As far as this nonsense of it being a 'private' company, you really should educate yourself before you go spewing that around any further. The NFL enjoys tax exempt status - why do you think people fall all over themselves to secure an NFL franchise? Throw in Virginia giving the Redskins over $6 million to move their training camp facility (taxpayer funds, mind you), and throw in another $70+ million of taxpayer funds for their stadium, and you have something is far, far removed from a 'private' company. >>
$70 million is a bargain to have FedEx field built in your town. Every large company/team/production recieves some sort of local/state tax credit. This does not mean they are suddenly responsible for the opinion of a lobbying group backed by millionaire casino owners. I'm not sure what the NFL's tax-exempt status has to do with this argument, but if you're inferring that this makes the Washington Redskins not a private company, you're wrong.
The NFL is technically a trade association of the 32 individual team ownerships who agree to a set of bylaws governing the rules, marketing, scheduling, and contractual agreements with any merchandise that has the NFL name or logo. I used "ownerships" instead of owners because many teams have multiple owners with one holding majority control. Others have only 1 owner. All those teams are privately held companies, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers who are publically owned and managed by a board of directors elected by shareholders.
The teams are NOT tax exempt. The NFL is. The Washington Redskins pay their taxes just like everyone else (more than making up for that petty $70 million they got from the state). Please don't get into an argument with me about tax-exempt organizations.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
$70 million is a bargain to have FedEx field built in your town. Every large company/team/production recieves some sort of local/state tax credit. This does not mean they are suddenly responsible for the opinion of a lobbying group backed by millionaire casino owners. I'm not sure what the NFL's tax-exempt status has to do with this argument, but if you're inferring that this makes the Washington Redskins not a private company, you're wrong. >>
The tax exempt status means all the money the NFL receives that it funnels to its teams are tax exempt, and it's relevant that this means it is NOT a private company. As far as a 'bargain', that has nothing to do with the fact that taxpayer funds were used, again destroying the notion that this is a 'private' company.
<< <i>The NFL is technically a trade association of the 32 individual team ownerships who agree to a set of bylaws governing the rules, marketing, scheduling, and contractual agreements with any merchandise that has the NFL name or logo. I used "ownerships" instead of owners because many teams have multiple owners with one holding majority control. Others have only 1 owner. All those teams are privately held companies, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers who are publically owned and managed by a board of directors elected by shareholders. >>
This has nothing to do whatsoever with the argument that taxpayer funds are being used to publicly use a racist slur.
<< <i>The teams are NOT tax exempt. The NFL is. The Washington Redskins pay their taxes just like everyone else (more than making up for that petty $70 million they got from the state). Please don't get into an argument with me about tax-exempt organizations. >>
I guess you'll do anything to get away from defending the use of a racial slur in publicly funded stadiums.
<< <i>Caucasian men are the problem. Thanks for clearing that up. >>
They're not the problem, but you cannot possibly argue against white men throughout American history have been barriers to social reform. This time it's no different. I wonder if Dan Snyder would have issue if there was a football team that used a Jewish slur, much like he seems to enjoy his continued use of a Native American slur to make millions of dollars from. There's an excellent satirical post on this very topic on the onion.
<< <i>I guess you'll do anything to get away from defending the use of a racial slur in publicly funded stadiums. >>
I'm not the one who brought up the tax guidelines the NFL does and does not take advantage of.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
Wiki Leak... I mean Link
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess you'll do anything to get away from defending the use of a racial slur in publicly funded stadiums. >>
I'm not the one who brought up the tax guidelines the NFL does and does not take advantage of. >>
It was brought up to refute the (false) notion that the Redskins team is a private company.
<< <i>It was brought up to refute the (false) notion that the Redskins team is a private company. >>
Did you not just read my other post. The only team that isn't a privately held company are the Packers. The only tie they have to the NFL (a not-for-profit trade association that benefits from a tax-exempt status) is membership dues. This does not discount the fact that they are a private company. Geez.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Walking around this afternoon to vote and I saw the signs indicating the place to vote, and the signs were in both English and Spanish, and it brought me back to this discussion. The same folks who rail against signs/voice mails being in both English and Spanish are likely the same folks railing against a minority of Native Americans having a right to affect change.
Throughout American history, white men have long been the gatekeepers as it were. From the founding fathers (which were a group of wealthy, white, men) on down the line, white men have held the keys to wealth and power and freedom. At each and every point in which that status has been questioned (slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc.) there's been a very fierce opposition to it from this same very group - wealthy, white, men. A fierce opposition to a minority being given the same voice, the same rights as these men were handed simply through being born.
This discussion is no different. The same folks who would have denounced civil rights as it being a minority of the population are also trying to minimize the impact of the racist term 'Redskin' because they feel it doesn't affect enough people. Or they don't know anyone personally who has been affected by it. History is your guide, folks, and change happens all the time in regards to folks considered to be a 'minority'.
As far as this nonsense of it being a 'private' company, you really should educate yourself before you go spewing that around any further. The NFL enjoys tax exempt status - why do you think people fall all over themselves to secure an NFL franchise? Throw in Virginia giving the Redskins over $6 million to move their training camp facility (taxpayer funds, mind you), and throw in another $70+ million of taxpayer funds for their stadium, and you have something is far, far removed from a 'private' company. >>
We have a black president, who was voted in by mostly white men and women. Without that majority vote, he would have surely lost.
Our first African American female secretary of state was appointed by a far right white man.
Our first black supreme court justice was appointed by a far right white man.
Many gays who serve in important roles in society have been appointed by white men.
I really don't know what your point is. The white American man has done a great job in bringing justice to many people in America.
How have the black leaders done in Africa ?
How did the Native Americans do in progressing their society in America ? I doubt you've done your homework on how they treated each other.
They did have a reputation you know when our founding fathers descended here. Believe me ,they earned it.
How have the Chinese done in progressing their society with human rights ?
How about the dark skinned Muslims ? How are they doing ?
Looks like you have a problem with the "white man", who has pretty much built the greatest country in the world in the United States of America.
I think you owe a bit of gratitude to the founding fathers. If you do not, may I suggest you move to Africa, and have yourself subjugated to the African black rulers.
Perhaps you will have a sudden change of heart. Just a guess.
<< <i>
<< <i>Caucasian men are the problem. Thanks for clearing that up. >>
They're not the problem, but you cannot possibly argue against white men throughout American history have been barriers to social reform. . >>
You cannot possibly argue ???
Are you kidding me ?
Uh, what white man was behind freeing the slaves in the south ? Do you want me to tell you what President that was ?
What white man brought in Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier in baseball ?
What prominent white men supported Martin Luther King ?
What group of prominent white men (and universities (run by white men)) got behind the woman's right to vote ?
What Ivy League schools promoted the advancement of women in American culture ? Who ran these Ivy League schools, and taught in their classroom ?
It doesn't matter what the color of a man's skin is. What matters is the idea behind a movement, an if that idea is just or unjust.
If caucasian men are not the problem, then why did you bring up your point that throughout American history white men have been the gatekeepers; white men have held the keys to wealth, power and freedom; and white men have put up a fierce opposition to person who are not white men being given equal status?
What exactly is your point?
Edmundfiztgerald makes good points in his most recent replies.
Many of the advances in our society that have broken down barriers facing people who are not white men have come about as a result of the actions of white men, many times in the face of stiff opposition from white men on the progressive, left side of the political spectrum.
The idea of "white men" = "evil" and "people other than white men - good" is just plain stupid.
Throughout history people across the globe (of all genders, races, religions, etc.) have committed unspeakable acts of evil. Evil is not limited to one particular subset of humanity. At the same time people across the globe have acted in a manner that is nothing less than saintly, helping others. Goodness is not limited to one particular subset of humanity.
Maybe you are just afflicted with "white guilt" (if you are a white man). If so, you can expiate your guilt by giving away all of your property, money and resources to those less fortunate and you can devote all of your time (for free) to helping those less fortunate. If that is not enough to expiate any white guilt you have you can do whatever it is that is possible to change you from a human who is a white man to a human who is not a white man. Good luck with that expiation thing.
Getting back to the issue of the name Redskins and whether it should be dropped and discarded by the football team and Dan Snyder, it is annoying beyond belief that simply because someone (or some group who purports to represent or advocate for someone) complains that they are offended by the name, the team and/or its owner must immediately comply with the demand to drop ithe name. If the team and/or its owner want to continue to use the name, that is there right to do so. If by continuing to use the name the tide of public opinion turns against the team and its owner to the point where the revenue generated by the team drops, then the market will put pressure on the team and its owner to drop the name. If the team and its owner still refuses, then who cares if the team fails financially and goes out of business. Some other team will replace it and will use a different name.
Would you still insist on Dan Snyder no longer using the name Redskins if he was simply standing on a tree stump in the public square exercising his right to free speech by shouting out in a loud voice the the Washington Redskins are playing the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night and please buy a ticket to see the game? Or do you think it is ok to prohibit Mr. Snyder from saying whatever he wants on the tree stump in the public square because you are ofended (or someone else, somewhere may be either now or in the future offended)?
<< <i>Alinsky nods. >>
The intellectually and/or morally diverse would find this troubling . --- Sonny
<< <i>
Getting back to the issue of the name Redskins and whether it should be dropped and discarded by the football team and Dan Snyder, it is annoying beyond belief that simply because someone (or some group who purports to represent or advocate for someone) complains that they are offended by the name, the team and/or its owner must immediately comply with the demand to drop ithe name. >>
Complaints against Indian mascots go back to the 70s. This is not immediate
<< <i>
If the team and/or its owner want to continue to use the name, that is there right to do so. If by continuing to use the name the tide of public opinion turns against the team and its owner to the point where the revenue generated by the team drops, then the market will put pressure on the team and its owner to drop the name. If the team and its owner still refuses, then who cares if the team fails financially and goes out of business. Some other team will replace it and will use a different name. >>
That's exactly what's happening
<< <i>1985fan:
If caucasian men are not the problem, then why did you bring up your point that throughout American history white men have been the gatekeepers; white men have held the keys to wealth, power and freedom; and white men have put up a fierce opposition to person who are not white men being given equal status?
>>
Not *all* white men were the problem, but a majority did once stand in opposition to the issues I quoted. What started as a minority opinion became the majority (much like the outcry over use of the racial slur 'Redskin' will be).
[q
Many of the advances in our society that have broken down barriers facing people who are not white men have come about as a result of the actions of white men, many times in the face of stiff opposition from white men on the progressive, left side of the political spectrum.
>>
White men in the minority, yes.
<< <i>The idea of "white men" = "evil" and "people other than white men - good" is just plain stupid. >>
And totally not what I stated. But if you want to casually forget American history, and see it was by and large white men who have stood in the way of progressive rights in this country, I can't stop you. Just don't expect me to be so willfully ignorant.
<< <i>Throughout history people across the globe (of all genders, races, religions, etc.) have committed unspeakable acts of evil. Evil is not limited to one particular subset of humanity. At the same time people across the globe have acted in a manner that is nothing less than saintly, helping others. Goodness is not limited to one particular subset of humanity. >>
Good thing I wasn't talking about human history but, as I clearly stated, American history.
<< <i>Maybe you are just afflicted with "white guilt" (if you are a white man). If so, you can expiate your guilt by giving away all of your property, money and resources to those less fortunate and you can devote all of your time (for free) to helping those less fortunate. If that is not enough to expiate any white guilt you have you can do whatever it is that is possible to change you from a human who is a white man to a human who is not a white man. Good luck with that expiation thing. >>
It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with seeing those with less of a voice being given the right to have their opinions known. As far as volunteerism, I already do, but thanks for the idea!
<< <i>Getting back to the issue of the name Redskins and whether it should be dropped and discarded by the football team and Dan Snyder, it is annoying beyond belief that simply because someone (or some group who purports to represent or advocate for someone) complains that they are offended by the name, the team and/or its owner must immediately comply with the demand to drop ithe name. If the team and/or its owner want to continue to use the name, that is there right to do so. If by continuing to use the name the tide of public opinion turns against the team and its owner to the point where the revenue generated by the team drops, then the market will put pressure on the team and its owner to drop the name. If the team and its owner still refuses, then who cares if the team fails financially and goes out of business. Some other team will replace it and will use a different name. >>
Why is it 'annoying' to you? What possible vested interest do you have in the continuation of the term 'Redskin' for a football team? How can it possible 'annoy' you?
<< <i>Would you still insist on Dan Snyder no longer using the name Redskins if he was simply standing on a tree stump in the public square exercising his right to free speech by shouting out in a loud voice the the Washington Redskins are playing the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night and please buy a ticket to see the game? Or do you think it is ok to prohibit Mr. Snyder from saying whatever he wants on the tree stump in the public square because you are ofended (or someone else, somewhere may be either now or in the future offended)? >>
Of course not, because that is his first amendment right to do so. However, that has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with the conversation at hand.
Why is it 'annoying' to you? What possible vested interest do you have in the continuation of the term 'Redskin' for a football team? How can it possibly 'annoy' you?
Broken record's still skipping, I see. Just because others disagree with your stance does not by default mean they have some hidden agenda or vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It isn't about that- and someone less dense would have figured that out by now.
If you bother to actually read some of the replies, most people are simply tired of those who have appointed themselves spokesmen and would-be saviors for a group of people who by and large frankly just don't care about the issue. It is a fact that this is a virtual non-issue for the vast majority of Native Americans-something you choose to deny. But still this loud micro-minority comprised of mostly NON-Native people have decided that they need to "stand up" for folks who neither NEED nor WANT them to. And that is what is annoying, at least to this poster.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
Broken record's still skipping, I see. Just because others disagree with your stance does not by default mean they have some hidden agenda or vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It isn't about that- and someone less dense would have figured that out by now. >>
One could the say exactly the same about those proponents of the continued use of a racial slur for a football team name. They are so against the idea of the 'PC Police' (whoever they are) upending their hold on the world that they lash out - without knowing why.
<< <i>If you bother to actually read some of the replies, most people are simply tired of those who have appointed themselves spokesmen and would-be saviors for a group of people who by and large frankly just don't care about the issue. It is a fact that this is a virtual non-issue for the vast majority of Native Americans-something you choose to deny. But still this loud micro-minority comprised of mostly NON-Native people have decided that they need to "stand up" for folks who neither NEED nor WANT them to. And that is what is annoying, at least to this poster. >>
What's annoying is you (and your ilk who want to keep using racist terms in sports) have YET, after all this time, come up with a single, solitary reason for the continued use of this racist term. No, 'that's how it's been for years!' is not a reason, nor is 'the PC police always try to get in the way!' isn't one either.
You know why and others haven't said why you are so feverish in your defense of the continued use of racist terms? Because you have no defense. You have no argument. You and others like you continue to dance around the issue, throwing up analogies that are completely flawed, but in the end, your defense is completely and utterly wrong.
<< <i>Why is it 'annoying' to you? What possible vested interest do you have in the continuation of the term 'Redskin' for a football team? How can it possibly 'annoy' you?
Broken record's still skipping, I see. Just because others disagree with your stance does not by default mean they have some hidden agenda or vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It isn't about that- and someone less dense would have figured that out by now.
If you bother to actually read some of the replies, most people are simply tired of those who have appointed themselves spokesmen and would-be saviors for a group of people who by and large frankly just don't care about the issue. It is a fact that this is a virtual non-issue for the vast majority of Native Americans-something you choose to deny. But still this loud micro-minority comprised of mostly NON-Native people have decided that they need to "stand up" for folks who neither NEED nor WANT them to. And that is what is annoying, at least to this poster. >>
Why is any of that relevant? You're conflating two different issues-- your opinion of the protesters, and the validity of their argument.
Let me give you a personal example which may highlight this distinction. There are fringe groups in the American South that would love to see the 'South' (which is generally termed to mean the states of the Confederacy) secede from the Union. Now, on a personal level these people annoy me very much; I doubt I have much at all in common with them, and I take pains to ensure that I don't have to spend personal time around them. However, on this particular issue we're in total lockstep, since I too would love to see the South secede. I don't like the messenger, but I agree with the message.
Another example would be state-funded abortions. I'm pro-choice; however, I understand why some people are not, and it would drive me nuts if I were pro-life and knew my tax dollars were subsidizing abortions. So, while I generally have very little time or energy for the beliefs of people on the religious right, I agree that their money shouldn't go to something which they stand so strongly against.
Coming back to the Redskins issue: You can find yourself worn out by the kind of people who rise up in protest against issues like this, and that's fine-- in fact, on some level I'm inclined to agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the crux of their argument, which is that a team that's a) located in our nation's capital, and b) plays in our most popular professional sport, is named the freaking 'Redskins'. That's just embarrassing. If a wild eyed hippie drenched in patchouli said it was embarrassing i would agree with them, and if a Bible-thumping nutbag said it was embarrasing I would agree with them as well. The thing to focus on is the issue- not your opinions of the various people taking sides in the issue.
Pro-Choice ?
Isn't that where educated men feel it's ok for a woman to kill her baby with a beating heart inside her own womb ?
But that same woman can be sent to jail if she murders that child with a beating heart when it's outside her womb ?
<< <i>Pro-Choice ?
Isn't that where educated men feel it's ok for a woman to kill her baby with a beating heart inside her own womb ?
But that same woman can be sent to jail if she murders that child with a beating heart when it's outside her womb ? >>
"Rule 1) This is not a public forum. This is a PSA forum paid for by PSA and provided for PSA customers to exchange information regarding trading cards and/or memorabilia. We make the rules; this is not a democracy.
Rule 5) If you have nothing to contribute to a thread or the forum as a whole, then do not post. Snide remarks and other negative comments will result in your losing your ability to post. No more warnings.
Rule 6) This forum is about collecting trading cards and/or memorabilia. If your post is not directly related to trading cards and/or memorabilia, then this is the wrong forum. Do not post it or your posting privileges may be removed.
Rule 8) This forum is provided for the education and sharing of information, not as a personal soapbox. If you want to learn and share information about trading cards and/or memorabilia, you are welcome here. ""
<< <i>Pro-Choice ?
Isn't that where educated men feel it's ok for a woman to kill her baby with a beating heart inside her own womb ?
But that same woman can be sent to jail if she murders that child with a beating heart when it's outside her womb ? >>
Everyone draws a line somewhere. You, apparently, draw it at the point of conception. I draw it someplace later than that, but some point before the third trimester.
That aside, we're not arguing the abortion issue here. If you want to gnash your teeth over political matters that have no sports-related theme there are plenty of message boards out there that will happily accommodate you.
No...I'm stating that the argument becomes moot when by and large the overwhelming majority of those at the center of the argument-you know-Native Americans- DON'T CARE ABOUT THE STUPID NAME OF A FOOTBALL TEAM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. The protesters in this matter, most of whom are non-NA, base their whole protest around the idea that all NA people are supposedly offended by the team name... and when it's pointed out to them that the vast majority aren't in the slightest, their response is that NA people are too ignorant, poor and/or dumb to know that they should be offended. Wow. Like I said before...if I were a native American person I'd certainly be more irked by that attitude than the name of a silly football team that doesn't affect my life in the slightest.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012