The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Commander PK]

I can't remember if this argument has ever been made in here before, but I thought of it this morning.  

 

Take the NAACP.  "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"

 

Now...would any right-minded person of another race in 2014 call an African-American person in this country a "colored person?" No...while not as bad as the uber-offensive "n-word" calling a person "colored" would be culturally and racially insensitive for our times...even though that was maybe not always the case.  

 

Now...some people at this point would say, "Yes, but the NAACP is an organization for the advancement of African Americans, and it was started by African Americans and is administered by African Americans.  (edit: I have learned not just African Americans) While some have called for a change to the name of the organization (see where I am going here) the vast majority of people do not agree that the name is offensive, as it has historical and traditional value."  In addition, in 1909 when the NAACP was founded, it was founded by African Americans who were using an acceptable term to describe them at that time. 

 

Now...some might say at this point "Well, the Washington Redskins are owned by a white man and were founded by a known racist white man.  Natives have and had no say and no control over the organization.  They have no stake in the team or the name"

 

Well, here is where the Annenberg Poll comes into play for me as well as other recent polls.  Native Americans are very clearly in large majority behind the name.  Those offended organize protests and 9 people show up.  I wonder how many African-Americans would show up to a protest to change the name of the NAACP.  I don't know how many, but I'd bet the farm there would be more than 9.   

 

so...where are the media folks protesting the NAACP?  Where are the white journalists at with their self-righteous three page works of art demanding that the racist and culturally insensitive name of that organization be changed?  Aren't there some African Americans who believe the name "NAACP" should be changed?  Retired?  Relegated to history?  For the sake of argument, what if 10 to 20 percent of African Americans polled, of let's say around 750, believed the name of the NAACP is "offensive" and should be changed while 70 to 80 percent of African Americans didn't agree.  Would the 20% outweigh the 80% if we switch the same logic used against the Redskins over to that group?  

 

Not in my mind, and maybe it's because... 

 

the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" is the name of an organization, and in the context it's being used it is not offensive?

 

are people who don't think the name of the NAACP should be changed on the "wrong side of history?"

[Commander PK]

If a word offends me, I'm not in any way required to justify, to you or anybody else, why it offends me.  (I don;t even have to come up with a reason, for my "internal use". 

 

To pick an example, I don't have a reason why the n-word offends me.  It just does. 

 

Fair enough, but do you think that a minority where many of those people may feel exactly that way..."I don't have a reason why the "r-word" offends me.  It just does" should be able to force a change?  

 

Should we not have a higher standard?  

 

(Me and you always seem to get into it...understand I'm not trying to pick an argument.  Just asking a question...so before we even get started...here is a happy face  )

[RonYoungEra]

Fair enough, but do you think that a minority where many of those people may feel exactly that way..."I don't have a reason why the "r-word" offends me.  It just does" should be able to force a change?  

 

Should we not have a higher standard?  

 

This is seriously what you believe?  Let me explain something to you, when someone is offended, it's how they FEEL; it's the OPINION.  There's nothing to prove. 

 

And would you, as a non-Native American, have the audacity of the subject as sensitive as this, to tell a Native American, "No, you're wrong to be offended by the word 'redskin.'  As your beliefs are in the minority, I'm going to need some proof as to how you feel."  Get real. 

 

Now can you sit down with them and have a discussion as to why you both feel a certain way about something?  Sure, that'd be the mature what to do things.  You explain your opinion and let them explain theirs.  And maybe, one way or another, someone MAY change their mind.  But to sit there and say, "You're wrong for feeling offended."  Well, that's just not right.

 

And if you were to be so bold as to say to someone that they should or should not be offended, aren't you doing EXACTLY what you believe M. Wise, P. King, et. al are doing by supposedly telling Native Americans that the should be offended by the term "redskins"?

 

Edit:  Obligatory happy face: 

[grego]

This is seriously what you believe?  Let me explain something to you, whens someone is offended, it's how they FEEL; it's the OPINION.  There's nothing to prove. 

 

And would you, as a non-Native American, have the audacity of the subject as sensitive as this, to tell a Native American, "No, you're wrong to be offended by the word 'redskin.'  As your beliefs are in the minority, I'm going to need some proof as to how you feel."  Get real. 

 

 

 

 

heres what we are saying (for the umpteenth time in this thread)- susan harjo, activist extrordinaire, and others have gone on record saying they are offended by 'redskins' because it came from a reference to native american scalps.

 

a few years ago, ives goddard wrote a lengthy paper about the word. he got about 100 words into it before he felt the need to call harjo out by name, essentially calling her a liar, in much nicer terms. 

 

do you feel the washington redskins- a team that has been around for 80 years- should have to change their name because susan harjo is offended, even though her reason for being offended is completely bogus?

 

 

 

larry- i understand what youre saying. i'm offended (as a white guy) by the n word as well. makes my skin crawl. but nobodys arguing any different about the n word. and neither one of us are asking a billion dollar business to change their name because of our feelings. 

 

i mean, this has been taken to court- when it gets taken to court again, harjo et al are going to be asked to present a case. 

 

if youre saying nobody has to claim a reason for being offended, how quickly could we have the dallas cowboys name changed, simply because we say its offensive?

[RonYoungEra]

heres what we are saying (for the umpteenth time in this thread)- susan harjo, activist extrordinaire, and others have gone on record saying they are offended by 'redskins' because it came from a reference to native american scalps.

 

a few years ago, ives goddard wrote a lengthy paper about the word. he got about 100 words into it before he felt the need to call harjo out by name, essentially calling her a liar, in much nicer terms. 

 

do you feel the washington redskins- a team that has been around for 80 years- should have to change their name because susan harjo is offended, even though her reason for being offended is completely bogus?

 

 

 

larry- i understand what youre saying. i'm offended (as a white guy) by the n word as well. makes my skin crawl. but nobodys arguing any different about the n word. and neither one of us are asking a billion dollar business to change their name because of our feelings. 

 

i mean, this has been taken to court- when it gets taken to court again, harjo et al are going to be asked to present a case. 

 

if youre saying nobody has to claim a reason for being offended, how quickly could we have the dallas cowboys name changed, simply because we say its offensive?

 

After reading this entire thread (thanks to all the kind suggestions--it took a while, but I think I'm better for reading it), Grego, I've read your argument over & over (and over & over).  The MAIN argument that you keep presenting is that you think that Native Americans (Harjo, in particular) are wrong to be offended because they're wrong in saying that the term ORIGINATED from its use in relation to scalpings rather than one of self-identification, according to Goddard.  I get that. 

 

But even if Harjo is wrong is this belief, her belief is still one of offense.  She also says of the term "redskins", calling it the worst thing that a Native American can be called and stating, "It is basically characterizing a person by their skin.  How wrong is that?"  So she's obviously offended by the term (deeply, offended, I may add), regardless of where the term originated.  I won't dismiss her opinion/feelings as invalid, even if she is misinformed about the origination of the word.  Perhaps you could have a sit-down with her and explain the origination of the term "redskins" and she will change her mind and not be offended?

 

As far as, hypothetically, of course, someone being offended by the term "cowboys" and wanting them to change their name.  Well, they have a right to be offended (for whatever reason it is to them).  I'm not going to tell them that they'll have success in their endeavors but they certainly have the right to be offended and I won't tell them that they shouldn't be offended.  Will it happen any time soon?  I don't think so.  The name change against the Redskins has been 40 years in the making and still hasn't happened.  Complicated and sensitive matters such as this don't happen overnight.  But do I think it will happen in my lifetime?  My OPINION is that it will. 

[grego]

After reading this entire thread (thanks to all the kind suggestions--it took a while, but I think I'm better for reading it), Grego, I've read your argument over & over (and over & over).  The MAIN argument that you keep presenting is that you think that Native Americans (Harjo, in particular) are wrong to be offended because they're wrong in saying that the term ORIGINATED from its use in relation to scalpings rather than one of self-identification, according to Goddard.  I get that. 

 

But even if Harjo is wrong is this belief, her belief is still one of offense.  She also says of the term "redskins", calling it the worst thing that a Native American can be called and stating, "It is basically characterizing a person by their skin.  How wrong is that?"  So she's obviously offended by the term (deeply, offended, I may add), regardless of where the term originated.  I won't dismiss her opinion/feelings as invalid, even if she is misinformed about the origination of the word.  Perhaps you could have a sit-down with her and explain the origination of the term "redskins" and she will change her mind and not be offended?

 

As far as, hypothetically, of course, someone being offended by the term "cowboys" and wanting them to change their name.  Well, they have a right to be offended (for whatever reason it is to them).  I'm not going to tell them that they'll have success in their endeavors but they certainly have the right to be offended and I won't tell them that they shouldn't be offended.  Will it happen any time soon?  I don't think so.  The name change against the Redskins has been 40 years in the making and still hasn't happened.  Complicated and sensitive matters such as this don't happen overnight.  But do I think it will happen in my lifetime?  My OPINION is that it will. 

 

 

i dont necessarily disagree with alot of that. but it does get murky- for me- when someone is, essentially, making up things to be offended by. its like, i can believe the moon is made of cheese- i may believe it, but it doesnt make it true. i believe she believes shes offended. 

 

i should say that part of why she gets my ire is because of other things shes said. if i can find a link, i'll post it, but shes essentially the elijah mohommed of native americans. the white man is the devil. her writings are bizzare. there is no question in my mind that she is a kook, and it annoys (offends! ) me that she gets so much run and is unquestioned as some kind of legitimate representative of all native americans. 

 

anyway- losing my train of thought. gottta get back to work

[grego]

btw- might be a good time to post a favorite anecdote about my favorite activist, just so we know the kind of person we are dealing with. 

 

she not only makes up her own definition of 'redskin', she makes up her own definition of 'squaw'.

 

The idea that squaw means vagina (to use the polite term) first found its way into print in a polemical 1973 book, Literature of the American Indian, by Thomas E. Sanders and Walter W. Peek. Sanders and Peek, without offering evidence, advanced the theory that squaw derived from the Mohawk wordojiskwa' (sources vary on spelling), meaning vagina. This notion appealed to a certain mind-set and was circulated widely in the activist community. In 1992 it was revealed to the world at large on Oprah by Native American spokesperson Suzan Harjo: "The word squaw is an Algonquin [sic] Indian word meaning vagina, and that'll give you an idea of what the French and British fur trappers were calling all Indian women, and I hope no one ever uses that term again." This marked the beginning of organized efforts to remove the word squaw from place names, a campaign that continues today, so far with mixed success.

 

 

Hey, free country. Except that squaw doesn't mean vagina. "It is as certain as any historical fact can be that the word squaw that the English settlers in Massachusetts used for 'Indian woman' in the early 1600s was adopted by them from the word squa that their Massachusett-speaking neighbors used in their own language to mean 'female, younger woman,' and not from Mohawkojiskwa', 'vagina,' which has the wrong shape [sound], the wrong meaning, and was used by people with whom they then had no contact. 

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2542/is-squaw-an-obscene-insult

[Bang]

My problem is Harjo claims her offense speaks for all.

This has been proven to not be true, and by a wide margin.

Until proven otherwise, then the question remains.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

Really OT, feel free to skip.  (In fact, I should probably recommend it.)  The thread just needs less cataclysmic drama and more humor. 

 

Once there was an Indian Chief, who had several squaws. 

 

One of his squaws gave the chief two sons.  (Being a male-dominant culture, the Indians didn't really count the arrival of daughters.)  To thank this squaw for this gift, the Chief made to her the gift of the hide of a Hippopotamus.  (Which was a very, very, rare animal hide, since the tribe lived in the American desert.) 

 

The chief also had two other squaws, who blessed him with one son each.  To thank them for their gifts, he gave each of them an animal hide, but of much lesser value. 

 

The moral being that the sons of the squaw of the hippopotamus are equal to the sons of the squaws of the other hides. 

[RonYoungEra]

Sounds like y'all's issues are more with Harjo!   She obviously does not speak for everyone (does anyone truly speak for everyone?!) and the louder you are doesn't mean that you're "righter" either (as evidenced all across this message board ). 

[Larry]

Sounds like y'all's issues are more with Harjo! . . .

It's certainly possible to fall into that trap.

When you have a person like Harjo, or Jessee Jackson, or Glenn Beck, or (insert some other figure), who works so hard to make themselves, personally, into the icon for a movement, then it's natural for people to think of that person as representative of the entire group.

(After all, that's what said person is trying to do: To make themselves the "icon" for the cause.)

And it can be the wrong thing to do. For one thing, it can cause people to assume that the entire cause are attention whores, just because the icon indisputably is.

[SWFLSkins]

i dont necessarily disagree with alot of that. but it does get murky- for me- when someone is, essentially, making up things to be offended by. its like, i can believe the moon is made of cheese- i may believe it, but it doesnt make it true. i believe she believes shes offended. 

 

 

 

I bet I can organize a wine party, suckers buy anything. Baseless facts are still baseless. She has made a cottage industry for herself on behalf of a incredibly small portion of the NA population. If Native Americans are as community so offended where is the outcry? I personally asked three tribes both in writing and when able spoke directly with individuals. You know what they said, We have no opinion, and the reasoning was not to bring validity to something that has none. I bet I could find more than nine people that are offended by fat people, should they (9) demand they stay indoors, workout and stop eating? No, they have every right to eat as they see fit. 

 

Something that is getting lost in this mess is freedom, rule by majority and due process. Speech is free. The majority of Native Americans have responded, until otherwise a minority can't determine a course. Due Process was met as this has gone to court. If the problem was a problem it would have been met with more judicial debate. 

When you have a person like Harjo, or Jessee Jackson, or Glenn Beck, or (insert some other figure), who works so hard to make themselves, personally, into the icon for a movement, then it's natural for people to think of that person as representative of the entire group.

 

 

A movement, lol. This is no movement. There are no riots, protests of magnitude, hunger strikes, sit in's. 

[RonYoungEra]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Harjo, I think she does bring us an extremely valid point in that the name "redskin" does define a certain race of people by the color of their skin.  There is no debating that.  Yes, the Native Americans first coined the phrase to help differentiate themselves from the non-Native Europeans infiltrating their country.  Now I could see how many Natives would be offended by non-Natives using the term "redskins" in a disparaging way, as it certainly has been done in the past (see this thread for several examples).  I can also see how some Natives have used the term as a sense of pride (Red Mesa Redskins, for example).  I think that the term "redskins" is a phrase that was created by Natives and it's their term to use as they desire. 

 

I in no way think that the Washington Redskins are intentionally using the term in a disparaging way.  Nor do I think that people who don't want to change the name are in any way being racists.  Whether the original renaming of the team was actually used as a term of honor or not is certainly open to debate, although likely to never be proven one way or another. 

 

Regardless, I think we're debating the wrong thing in regards to the term being offensive to some Native Americans or not.  We (the Washington Redskins) are a professional sports team that has chosen a name that identifies a certain race of people strictly by the color of their skin.  At a very minimum, it's a racial identifier and at its worst, it's a term that's been used as a racial slur.  I can't think of any other professional sports teams that use a term that identifies a minority race of people by the color of their skin.  I challenge you to show me another.  And I don't mean that in an assholey way - I seriously would love to know if any other teams out there do this because I can't think of any. 

 

I believe that as a professional sports team, we can do better than choosing a name that identifies a minority race of people in America by the color of their skin.  And this is coming from a fan for the past 32 years.  Hell, the entire reason that I fell in love with the team is that, when I was 4, I liked their helmets and as a kid, enjoyed the whole "cowboys vs. Indians" thing coupled with the fact that I usually cheer for the underdogs.   My desire to have the name changed doesn't make me any less of a fan.  I understand traditionalists and can certainly respect their point of view.  Change is sometimes difficult and hard to deal with.  The team won't be the same in many people's eyes and many fans will come and go when we do change the name.  I hope that true fans do realize that they were in love with the players, the coaches, the memories created, the victories won and not just the team name.

 

Ultimately, to me, what it comes down to is this.  I love my football team.  Always have and always will.  I was not for a name change until last week.  This is a very new concept to me, but one that I'm 100% on board with.  I have friends who are Native American and they have told me that they are offended by the term Washington Redskins.  It bothers me that the name of the team I love offends the friends I love.  That makes me hesitant to even use the term "redskin" around them, for fear of making them uncomfortable around me, even if we are talking about football.  It's a term that's not endearing and certainly not "honorific" to them and I wholeheartedly respect that.  I will choose valued and respected real-life friendships over what name we choose to call our football team 8 days a week.  And I don't need any polls, UnWise Mike, Harjo, Snyder, or anyone else to help me come to this conclusion.  It's a very personal decision and one that I've ultimately decided for myself. 

 

I support changing the name of the Washington Redskins.  Will it be foreign and odd for a bit?  Absolutely.  Will I cheer for my team any less?  Absolutely not.  Long live the burgundy and gold (unless, of course, we change our color scheme too )!

[Bang]

Sounds like y'all's issues are more with Harjo!   She obviously does not speak for everyone (does anyone truly speak for everyone?!) and the louder you are doesn't mean that you're "righter" either (as evidenced all across this message board ). 

Of course not..  she can certainly raise her objection and see if she gets any support.. it's her right to do so.

But so far she hasn't been able to demonstrate that support among who she claims to represent.

This latest push that began about a year ago started a new tactic,, employing media and such.. again, a valid method of  spreading awareness.. BUT.. there's this pesky part of it not being everyone's decision.

She can convince the masses that it's offensive.. but until those masses include the people she claims it offends,, it isn't really much.

It's their decision, not whites, not blacks, not journalists, not fans or non-fans. It's the decision of the Native Americans, and that question has not been answered yet.

 

I don't know what % it would take to constitute 'enough"..but right now there seems to be a significant portion of the offended who are actually not offended, and I think their opinion matters as much as hers.

 

My main source of aggravation in all of this is that the New Crusaders (I don't consider anyone here in that regard) and their cause du jour are more concerned about it for themselves than anyone it offends.  I find it very telling when a journalist feels he or she must write a column to explain why they are suddenly offended by this word and how now they are very sensitive and blah blah blah.

It's nothing but a public pat on the back, self-administered.

(Rick Reilly went against the tide... and was lambasted by his colleagues for it. )

 

It's become an issue that is presented for the Kardashian Kulture.. those who are outraged daily by whatever they read on facebook, true or not. This of course is followed by the usual snootiness of how it's so obvious,,,, that they didn't get it til the other day themselves, even though they've known about this football team most of their lives. It's racist, and so are you, and how they; since pressing their like button, are not.

In my mind, it seems the Harjo 7 have been unable to win their case for twenty+ years, and now that they are coming to the end, their last ditch is to appeal to the like-button = social conscience mentality. Stampede the herd. 

 

It's disingenuous, to say the least.

 

~Bang

[MEANDWARF]

More issues  in this country than a name of a football team.

 

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/navajo-family-fights-to-stay-on-national-monument-land/article_062f8a9e-8b44-5000-afbf-360425ea515f.html

[Commander PK]

This is seriously what you believe?  Let me explain something to you, when someone is offended, it's how they FEEL; it's the OPINION.  There's nothing to prove. 

 

And would you, as a non-Native American, have the audacity of the subject as sensitive as this, to tell a Native American, "No, you're wrong to be offended by the word 'redskin.'  As your beliefs are in the minority, I'm going to need some proof as to how you feel."  Get real. 

 

Edit:  Obligatory happy face: 

 

You missed my point entirely.  No I would not sit down and tell a Native American they should not be offended.  Everybody has an opinion and a right to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by.

 

My point was that a minority percentage of a people, in this case Natives, should not be able to force an institution to change their name just because they "feel" it's offensive without any reasoning or facts behind that opinion other than "it's offensive, so it's offensive, because it's offensive."

 

Now with that said, if a large majority of those same people feel the name should be changed for the same reasons, "it's offensive, because I feel it's offensive.  I just don't like it, etc. etc."...than it is what it is.  Even if their offense is based on incorrect information...the name should change because that is what they want.  Issues are decided by majority in this country, that is how our system works.  

 

[RonYoungEra]

You missed my point entirely. No I would not sit down and tell a Native American they should not be offended. Everybody has an opinion and a right to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by.

My point was that a minority percentage of a people, in this case Natives, should not be able to force an institution to change their name just because they "feel" it's offensive without any reasoning or facts behind that opinion other than "it's offensive, so it's offensive, because it's offensive."

Now with that said, if a large majority of those same people feel the name should be changed for the same reasons, "it's offensive, because I feel it's offensive. I just don't like it, etc. etc."...than it is what it is. Even if their offense is based on incorrect information...the name should change because that is what they want. Issues are decided by majority in this country, that is how our system works.

Thanks for elaborating but I respectfully disagree on the "majority rules" concept. Yes, it certainly applies in some instances (such as electing officials into office) but not all. Current polls state that the majority of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana, for example, yet it remains illegal under federal law. http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

I can list countless examples but I don't feel the need to. I just don't think this issue is as cut and dry as "majority rules." What if 49% of Natives were opposed to the name and 51% in favor? Still no change?

[Spearfeather]

Thanks for elaborating but I respectfully disagree on the "majority rules" concept. Yes, it certainly applies in some instances (such as electing officials into office) but not all. Current polls state that the majority of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana, for example, yet it remains illegal under federal law. http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

 

 

 

But you would agree that we've seen more of a shift towards de-criminalization by some States, because that opinion has become the majority.

 

 

What if 49% of Natives were opposed to the name and 51% in favor?  Still no change?

 

What if years from now, Snyder announced that the team from that day forward ( under his ownership ), would officially be known as " Washington ".? 

 

Same logo. Same colors.

 

or

 

What if years from now, Snyder sold his majority percentage to a group of Native Americans that were intent on keeping the " Redskins " name ?

[RonYoungEra]

But you would agree that we've seen more of a shift towards de-criminalization by some States, because that opinion has become the majority.

What if years from now, Snyder announced that the team from that day forward ( under his ownership ), would officially be known as " Washington ".?

Same logo. Same colors.

or

What if years from now, Snyder sold his majority percentage to a group of Native Americans that were intent on keeping the " Redskins " name ?

Sure more states are completely decriminalizing marijuana (I can currently count 2) but the majority of the states still have not and federally, it's still illegal.

And if Snyder ever sells the majority of the team to Native Americans? Well let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it and leave it at that.

[Spearfeather]

 

And if Snyder ever sells the majority of the team to Native Americans?  Well let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it and leave it at that.

 

Yeah, but that's not exactly what you said earlier.

 

 

I think that the term "redskins" is a phrase that was created by Natives and it's their term to use as they desire. 

 

 

and

 

 

You still didn't really address my first scenario.

[RonYoungEra]

I can't answer what they're going to do in this hypothetical future. I suspect that they will do what they want to do - same as Snyder.

If you're asking what my personal opinion is, I would like to see us move away from the Native American theme altogether. Being the team in our Nation's Capital, I would appreciate a unifying patriotic theme that would truly embrace us as "America's Team."

[Spearfeather]

If you're asking what my personal opinion is, I would like to see us move away from the Native American theme altogether. Being the team in our Nation's Capitol, I would appreciate a unifying patriotic theme that would truly embrace us as "America's Team."

 

Wiping out the Native American theme and replacing it with more of a U.S. theme ............. Interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, this guy seems to think we're " American ", just the way we are. 

 

" Ray Hawthorne, a Navajo “code talker,” World War Two Veteran and medal of honor recipient speaking of the Washington Redskins NFL team: “ my opinion is that’s a name that not only the team should keep, but that’s a name that’s American.”

 

                                                 

[RonYoungEra]

Wiping out the Native American theme and replacing it with more of a U.S. theme ............. Interesting.

 

Anyway, this guy seems to think we're " American ", just the way we are. 

 

" Ray Hawthorne, a Navajo “code talker,” World War Two Veteran and medal of honor recipient speaking of the Washington Redskins NFL team: “ my opinion is that’s a name that not only the team should keep, but that’s a name that’s American.”

 

That was a tactless rephrasing of my answer.  I would like a theme that is less controversial than we currently have.  One that is not offensive to people that I know.  One that does not define a race by the color of their skin.  In keeping with the Nationals and Capitals theme, we have a unique opportunity to rebrand ourselves as a team to be embraced by the entire nation, seeing as we're uniquely situated in the Nation's capital.  

 

That great that Ray Hawthorne expressed his opinion.  You asked and I expressed mine.  Doesn't make either of us right.  Doesn't make either of us wrong.  You know what they say about opinions, right?

[Larry]

Sure more states are completely decriminalizing marijuana (I can currently count 2) but the majority of the states still have not and federally, it's still illegal.

Should I point out that you just invoked the notion that the majority is what counts, in support of your claim that the majority isn't important?

[Kosher Ham]

Pain, NAACP is for all people of color. Not just blacks. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Now while the name NAACP may indeed be considered offensive...would they change their name ? Where is the outcry ? Them even having an opinion publically about this topic has irony of it's own.