A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 FireChan, we've been allies in the past on a subject far more controversial than this one- EJ Manuel. Let's be cool. Number one, you do nitpick little words in my posts and then completely gloss over questions that I ask you. I'm still waiting for you to tell me who stands to capitalize from the Redskins potentially changing their name to, say the Warriors. Number two, if you are trying to expose some sort of contradiction on my part by saying that white people shouldn't weigh in on this subject (which I have maintained- I am only supporting the sentiment of many Native Americans here- if they didn't care, I wouldn't care) but that predominantly white lawmakers would ultimately have to get involved in the changing of the name, come on man, you're smarter than that. Who else is going to get involved? There really isn't a strong contingent of Native Americans in Congress. The National Congress of American Indians doesn't really have the jurisdiction to rule on this one. So of course white (and black) lawmakers will have to be involved in this process and that doesn't go against anything I have said. Not to take a side, but I am pretty sure there have be several high school and college team that have had their mascots change because a term like "Warrior" may imply that Native American population may have been savages. The one that comes to mind is the former name of William & Mary College's teams ... what was the name of their mascot before it was the Tribe? .... "The Indians"
metzelaars_lives Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) I'm going to start a National Congress of Sensitive White Kitties Trying to Jump on the Aggrieved Minority Bandwagon" and speak on behalf of people who never gave me their consent. So now we need to go back 2 centuries to see if it may have been used as a derogatory term back then? If the offensiveness requires that much effort to link, how disparaging can it really be? I don't care to debate this one any longer but I think it's pretty clear that you lack a perspective on and certainly a compassion for the plight of a once proud people who occupied the land that we live on for 15,000 years until 150 years ago. And for the hundredth time, I am not speaking on their behalf. I am merely saying, listen to them. Again, if they didn't care, I wouldn't care. Plenty of them care. And you, whether you realize it or not, are telling them- not me- that you don't care about the offense THEY are taking here. Forget about me for a second. Not to take a side, but I am pretty sure there have be several high school and college team that have had their mascots change because a term like "Warrior" may imply that Native American population may have been savages. The one that comes to mind is the former name of William & Mary College's teams ... what was the name of their mascot before it was the Tribe? .... "The Indians" Indians is a term that gained a bit of traction as maybe being somewhat offensive 20 years ago or so (after all, they're not freaking Indians- Louis CK has a great bit on that) but they have pretty much come to terms with that one and are way cooler with it than "redskins." Edited July 15, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Rocky Landing Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) The arguments in this thread seem to have focused as much on misrepresenting the opposition, as they have representing their own points. So, here is a summation of the points that have led me to my conclusion that changing the name is the right thing for the Redskins organization to do. And, I have put them quiz form so that anyone can decide which points they would argue. True or False: While the origin of the term “redskin” is benign, by the end of the 19th century, it had become a pejorative. True or False: Native American organizations like the Oneida Nation and the National Congress of American Indians have stated emphatically that the term “redskin” is offensive to them. True or False: Since the early seventies, there have been numerous protests by Native American groups opposing the Redskins name. True or False: The “Redskins” trademark was cancelled on the grounds that it was “disparaging to Native Americans.” True or False: Trademark protections notwithstanding, the Redskins name is constitutionally protected free speech. True or False: In the 1930s (the Redskins were named in 1933), the United States media overwhelmingly portrayed Native Americans negatively as either violent savages, comically childish savages, or drunken savages. True or False: Native Americans were marginalized, driven from their lands, and slaughtered by this country’s European forebears, as well as the United States government, and military. I believe all seven of these points to be true, and fairly easily verifiable. If one accepts this premise, the name would seem in extremely poor taste, at best. Edited July 15, 2015 by Rocky Landing
metzelaars_lives Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Thank you Rocky. And ya know, just because I'm not an actual Native American does not mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter or defend their cause. If in the 1860's, I lived in Boston and was anti-slavery, I feel like half of the people on here would have said, "who are you to tell me how slaves feel about slavery? How do you know they don't like it... I met a slave once and he said he didn't mind it at all... You're just a white, coast-dwelling, book reading, elitist, PC liberal." But who was it who authorized the abolishment of slavery? It wasn't Frederick Douglass. Similarly, the Native Americans alone do not have the authority or manpower to get rid of this name. So it's probably going to take a few white guys to help out along the way. Often times throughout history it takes support and compassion for oppressed groups from those outside the oppressed themselves to evoke change. Do you think that gay marriage would have ever become legal in one state in this country if only gay people supported it? Is the name Redskins as egregious as the institution of slavery or even anti-gay marriage sentiment? No. Were there people in the 1860's who I'm sure said those exact things about a white northerner opposing slavery? Absolutely, of course. And ya know what? I don't really care that much about this issue at all. The term "redskins" doesn't really offend me that much. I just find it ridiculous that anyone could adamantly argue against the name change as if changing the name somehow offends them. Edited July 15, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
K-9 Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 True of False: "Get over it" is the salve that heals all wounds for the oppressed.
Rocky Landing Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 True of False: "Get over it" is the salve that heals all wounds for the oppressed. That could certainly apply to either side of this debate. But, I think it says more about the person applying it than it does about the debate itself.
K-9 Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 That could certainly apply to either side of this debate. But, I think it says more about the person applying it than it does about the debate itself. Just to be clear, what I posted in no way disparages what you posted. And no, I don't think it applies to more than one side of the debate.
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 I don't care to debate this one any longer but I think it's pretty clear that you lack a perspective on and certainly a compassion for the plight of a once proud people who occupied the land that we live on for 15,000 years until 150 years ago. And for the hundredth time, I am not speaking on their behalf. I am merely saying, listen to them. Again, if they didn't care, I wouldn't care. Plenty of them care. And you, whether you realize it or not, are telling them- not me- that you don't care about the offense THEY are taking here. Forget about me for a second. Indians is a term that gained a bit of traction as maybe being somewhat offensive 20 years ago or so (after all, they're not freaking Indians- Louis CK has a great bit on that) but they have pretty much come to terms with that one and are way cooler with it than "redskins." You keep saying "listen to them" but you seem to suggest I should ignore those of "them" who like it and only listen to those of "them" who are offended. I don't have a lot of respect for people looking for new and creative ways of being offended and jumping on the aggrieved minority bandwagon. So I'll err on the side of Indians I actually know who either like, or are indifferent to, the name.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 You keep saying "listen to them" but you seem to suggest I should ignore those of "them" who like it and only listen to those of "them" who are offended. I don't have a lot of respect for people looking for new and creative ways of being offended and jumping on the aggrieved minority bandwagon. So I'll err on the side of Indians I actually know who either like, or are indifferent to, the name. Cool man. Go Bills.
FireChan Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) True of False: "Get over it" is the salve that heals all wounds for the oppressed. That's a funny definition of oppression. Edited July 15, 2015 by FireChan
metzelaars_lives Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 That's a funny definition of oppression. What is?
FireChan Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 What is? Language not intended to offend, offending, from a singular private citizen. Classic oppression. I put it right up there with getting blasted by a firehose.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 Language not intended to offend, offending, from a singular private citizen. Classic oppression. I put it right up there with getting blasted by a firehose. Yeah I don't know man. Anyway how do people who are in favor changing the name stand to capitalize in this case? Figure third time might be a charm here.
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Yeah I don't know man. Anyway how do people who are in favor changing the name stand to capitalize in this case? Figure third time might be a charm here. You asked it only twice. And I don't know. Perhaps 100 more pats on the back.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) You keep saying "listen to them" but you seem to suggest I should ignore those of "them" who like it and only listen to those of "them" who are offended. I don't have a lot of respect for people looking for new and creative ways of being offended and jumping on the aggrieved minority bandwagon. So I'll err on the side of Indians I actually know who either like, or are indifferent to, the name. Actually I'm gonna circle back to this one here for a second. So you know a few native Americans who have no issue with the name. Perfect. After reading more about this, according to most polls, more than half of Native Americans don't have an issue with the name. Now granted, many of them are probably younger, like football and just don't care. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that most Native Americans don't care. I am aware of this. That being said, what if the handful of Native Americans you happen to hang out with were among the millions of them who do care and they cared very deeply about it. Do you think you might feel differently then? I would assume you would be adamantly in favor of changing the name because you have stated that you are going to err on the side of the opinion of the handful of Native Americans you do know. What if you meet Native Americans who are deeply offended by the name in the future? Would their opinion hold any water or are you sticking with the few people you already know? Better yet, why don't you take a ride to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota sometime and ask around up there what they think. Are you like an ostrich? Do you think because you haven't met a Native American that is offended by the name that they don't really exist? You asked it only twice. And I don't know. Perhaps 100 more pats on the back. OK so you would acknowledge that "capitalize" may have been a poor choice of words on your behalf. And I think we could both agree that there really is no ulterior motive for people to get behind this cause other than because they think it's the right thing to do. Edited July 16, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Actually I'm gonna circle back to this one here for a second. So you know a few native Americans who have no issue with the name. Perfect. After reading more about this, according to most polls, more than half of Native Americans don't have an issue with the name. Now granted, many of them are probably younger, like football and just don't care. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that most Native Americans don't care. I am aware of this. That being said, what if the handful of Native Americans you happen to hang out with were among the millions of them who do care and they cared very deeply about it. Do you think you might feel differently then? I would assume you would be adamantly in favor of changing the name because you have stated that you are going to err on the side of the opinion of the handful of Native Americans you do know. What if you meet Native Americans who are deeply offended by the name in the future? Would their opinion hold any water or are you sticking with the few people you already know? Better yet, why don't you take a ride to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota sometime and ask around up there what they think. OK so you would acknowledge that "capitalize" may have been a poor choice of words on your behalf. And I think we could both agree that there really is no ulterior motive for people to get behind this cause other than because they think it's the right thing to do. When did I ever use the word capitalize? Are you sure you have the right poster? Rob generally attacks the "feel-good from my computer chair doing nothing constructive" crowd, you probably got us confused. Edited July 16, 2015 by FireChan
metzelaars_lives Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 When did I ever use the word capitalize? Are you sure you have the right poster? Rob generally attacks the "feel-good from my computer chair doing nothing constructive" crowd, you probably got us confused. I don't know what that means. Are you intimating that I fall into that crowd? You were right, he did write that. My mistake. Hey Rob, how does anyone stand to gain monetarily if the name were to be changed?
FireChan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I don't know what that means. Are you intimating that I fall into that crowd? You were right, he did write that. My mistake. Hey Rob, how does anyone stand to gain monetarily if the name were to be changed? No.
GottaRun Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I never really get where these disputes will end. I've got Irish friends who are offended by Notre Dame's motto and logo - do they automatically go to the front of the line in a dispute if the Redskins trademark is ruled offensive? There's so many sports logos/trademarks that are offensive to someone - if the Redskins fall who falls with them? Does every team end up being named after a nasty animal? Edited July 16, 2015 by driddles
LB3 Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 What is INCREDIBLY offensive to me is when other white people weigh in on this subject and assert their opinion as if it matters whatsoever. And ya know, just because I'm not an actual Native American does not mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter or defend their cause...... FTR, I don't have a problem with changing the team name. Just love seeing you write things like this. It's like you have selective amnesia.
Recommended Posts