SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 SWFL, I get it, you don't like the PC aspect of all this. Neither do I. It gets old. ALL pit bulls are bad etc... I"m just arguing against the arguments... You know, I guess this thread has made me more aware of some of the issues against the names I never considered. Trying to figure the best way to say this: Because of the history of Europeans vs. NA's, I do think its kind of hypocritical that we have taken their culture and used it in the way we have. IF I was a NA, I might be kind of pissed at the use of my culture that way, but I really don't know since I'm not NA. I consider myself a Native American proponent. I am no expert but have casually read a few books on the Native way, I highly admire the culture from a spiritual aspect and the system of community governing. One particular quote in a book, The Circle of Life, a spiritual place usually constructed of sticks and stones and facing West to signal the end of this place and the beginning of another was constantly moved as nature torn it down one way or the other. A signal from the creator to move on and change locale. The translated quote is, Change when the stench of humanity has disrupted the connection to the Creator. In that I have indeed found peace at my own church (s) experience, or spiritual walk. So if the name changes, Native American ways won't change for me, however I will still root for the team, and I will still believe, unless I see otherwise, that long term this is a blow to he history books and the Native Way will become further behind. History has ugly moments, they need to be remembered for good and bad. I don't think changing names of mascots intended to honor is going to right the wrongs, nor could it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Bonez, Aztecs, Vikings and Knights are non existent anymore. All that's left are ancestors. (unless Sir Paul McCartney counts... ) Fighting Irish, I never thought of that. Great point. SWFL, That's cool that you have read up and all. I appreciate that being a history teacher. I totally get your opinion and you stated before that you have experiences around NA's and you haven't experienced the racism and use of the word. I totally get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Code ask the students to name the top three plights of the Native Americans presently. If the name is one, they still have a lot of learning on the topic. Not being a smartass, was just a thought/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 LOL... one of my favorite students asked what "plight" meant... They have a lot to learn, but, we are now discussing it. Fun... 30 more minutes to kill until the bell rings. This has been better than talking about the Beta for Battlefield Harline, that just made me want to go home more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Yea- I was stretching to try and prove a point. I respect your stance, just don't agree because I feel any term used can be derogatory in wrong context. So, Redskins/Indians/Braves all interchangeable. What I do find relatively interesting as a side note is that almost all cultures have a racial slur. I don't know if NAs have a widely accepted 'verboten' term. One would think redskin may be closest because it uses a color. But, if in history one had arisen, may have bypassed this argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Califan, just showed the class your response on the promethean board... I explained: " A professor at the Smithsonian did a study and concluded that the word "Redskin" originated from the NA's themselves. They referred to themselves as red skins and europeans as white skins. No one changed their vote. In fact, one student brought up the fact that its ok for black kids to use the N word, because its about them, but when others do it, its an issue. (I think he's trying to say that the N word is fine among themselves, but no one else has the right... ) I'm not arguing that fact from my perspective, I'm just pointing out what was said. A couple other students agree. We are still having the discussion now. This has actually turned into an interesting last day of school For me personally, the origin doesn't really matter. Its now. If NA's refer to themselves as redskins (which, in my experience, which again isn't a lot, but its more than some), the do not refer to themselves as redskins, they call themselves indians. BTW, I never brought up the N word, they made that connection on their own. The point of my post, though, wasn't to say that your specific 23 students would change their minds (and showing them my response first wasn't the right way test that theory anyway). It was to say two things: 1) Nobody should EVER base a conclusion merely on anecdotal experiences, which people tend to take more personally because they evoke emotional responses...there's always far, far more to any story than that. 2) Public attitudes and responses can be manipulated when only portions of information are made available. If I were wanting to do what you did, it would take me about a month to go over all of the varied aspects of this debate with the students. And there would be a ****load of follow-up questions lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawBBQSauce Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 As a fully identified Irish American and family identified as same, it could easily be viewed as extremely offensive. Some have argued in this thread that it was the inclusive, inside group that adopted the moniker. Well, I'm sure a minority of Irish don't appreciate it. Most gravitate and are 'honored' by it. Point being, and I think you said it, there really is no line here. If Redskins goes so does all names. And they are not meant to be derogatory, rather hold culture in reverence. Believe it or not, the likely reason to choose those names were to honor NAs. Even if it were by those of European descent. Fighting Irish, redskins can have derogatory attachments, but historically honor groups. I know Notre Dame did not poll the Irish. This is a great way of explaining this and have never even thought twice about "Fighting Irish". I still believe there is a fundamental difference in the argument against "Redskins" vs "Fighting Irish". I just cannot overlook the significance of the European settlers' conquest of the natives' people and land. Our white ancestors destroyed their villages in the name of Manifest Destiny and civilized society, endangering their race for the proliferation of ours. That bothers me. And I think it's a concept that some of us don't want to entertain in our heads. We'd rather ignore it and be thankful of our place in this country today and just consider it to be a necessary evil. I'm sure this has been talked about before but I just feel the need to bring it up from time to time. Edit: Also, I understand how "Redskins" can be seen as a term of reverence but when taken out of the context of "The brave warriors," it's hard to rule that it is not at least slightly derogatory from an objective perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 This doesn't surprise me. Because the majority of football and non football people I casually bring it up to feel its not right. None of them are NA. However, I think the general public do not feel its offensive, but it is part of the battle. Obviously other racial slurs have been compared her, and I think if it were one of those OBVIOUS slurs poll would be different. My point was to show how they ditched the poll, ask yourself why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Cali, I understood, and I didn't take you literally, I'm just showing that polls are really not the greatest measure because everything is based on how you present it. That's all. You are saying that as well in point 2. I totally realize that my experiences a not the be all end all. I brought them up because so many people have posted that the issue is made up. Its not made up. I don't know the answer, but there are places in this country that are really different than what many of us are used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 SWFL, Just for fun, (today is the last day of school, its a formality, we are just having class parties), I just conducted a poll... (I have 23 students in class) 1. Do you think the Redsksins name is offensive? All 23 raised their hand for NO 2. Have you had any significant time around Native Americans? All 23 raised their hand NO 3. I shared my personal experience to them and asked question number 1 again. All 23 raised their hand YES. Do the same thing with the Vikings name. And then tell them about the original Vikings and see if you get the same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The point of my post, though, wasn't to say that your specific 23 students would change their minds (and showing them my response first wasn't the right way test that theory anyway). It was to say two things: 1) Nobody should EVER base a conclusion merely on anecdotal experiences, which people tend to take more personally because they evoke emotional responses...there's always far, far more to any story than that. 2) Public attitudes and responses can be manipulated when only portions of information are made available. If I were wanting to do what you did, it would take me about a month to go over all of the varied aspects of this debate with the students. And there would be a ****load of follow-up questions lol... Out of likes. Some people can't remain neutral or change on issues. I pride myself on collecting information and changing my opinion or having a developing opinion. The point you make is absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Out of likes. Man, I was about to say the same thing. I don't even remember liking anything this morning. Went to hit like on Code's post and got denied lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 This is a great way of explaining this and have never even thought twice about "Fighting Irish". I still believe there is a fundamental difference in the argument against "Redskins" vs "Fighting Irish". I just cannot overlook the significance of the European settlers' conquest of the natives' people and land. Our white ancestors destroyed their villages in the name of Manifest Destiny and civilized society, endangering their race for the proliferation of ours. That bothers me. And I think it's a concept that some of us don't want to entertain in our heads. We'd rather ignore it and be thankful of our place in this country today and just consider it to be a necessary evil. I'm sure this has been talked about before but I just feel the need to bring it up from time to time. Edit: Also, I understand how "Redskins" can be seen as a term of reverence but when taken out of the context of "The brave warriors," it's hard to rule that it is not at least slightly derogatory from an objective perspective. The Irish were brutalized in the US as slaves, just in case some here didn't know...it's more than disgusting what was done to the Irish by both England and the newly formed America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I wonder if Snyder is paying for a new study to take place right now. That doesn't seem to be the weird thing. The anti-name folks blast the old survey as being old, but you'd think they'd have a new one showing they are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 My point was to show how they ditched the poll, ask yourself why? You're preaching to choir, I know why. The geniuses start to believe their own BS and probably anticipated other result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Cali, I understood, and I didn't take you literally, I'm just showing that polls are really not the greatest measure because everything is based on how you present it. That's all. You are saying that as well in point 2. I totally realize that my experiences a not the be all end all. I brought them up because so many people have posted that the issue is made up. Its not made up. I don't know the answer, but there are places in this country that are really different than what many of us are used to. I misunderstood you completely then lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 This is a great way of explaining this and have never even thought twice about "Fighting Irish". I still believe there is a fundamental difference in the argument against "Redskins" vs "Fighting Irish". . To be fair, look up the history of how the Irish were treated in the UK and here pretty lousy. Not as bad as the Native American, but horrible nonetheless. And the, you get to be represented by a leprechaun. It would be easy to choose to see this as offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 "The Fighting Irish" was a derogatory nickname. Opposing teams and big city newspapers used it to mock the Catholics who played for Notre Dame in the early part of the century. Notre Dame - which I should add was run by Irish priests for most of the 19th and early 20th centuries - basically hijacked the nickname from its detractors. "Notre Dame Fighting Irish" is the original "Queer Studies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Well, it looks like we are finally hearing some in the media speak out on our behalf. Al Michaels recently spoke with Jim Rome on Showtime. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/13/dan-snyder-on-name-change-over-my-dead-body/ During an interview with Jim Rome on Showtime this week, NBC Sunday Night Football play-by-play man Al Michaels was asked if he thought Snyder would try to hang onto the name despite the complaints. “It seems to me as if he is going to hold on,” Michaels said, via the Washington Post. “I mean all of the sudden — I mean, for 70-some odd years this was a zero issue, and then it became an issue. I understand we live in this politically correct environment. It’s crazier than ever; you know, senators want to weigh in on this, like there’s nothing better to do in Congress. This becomes a big issue. I mean, I just think it’s nuts. “And I do know, I’ve talked to Snyder about it — not recently but when we were in Washington last year — and he basically said ‘over my dead body.’” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 IF Snyder has enough money to offer, I can get my 23 students to change their votes... I'm out of likes too... Good stuff going on today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 To be fair, look up the history of how the Irish were treated in the UK and here pretty lousy. Not as bad as the Native American, but horrible nonetheless. And the, you get to be represented by a leprechaun. It would be easy to choose to see this as offensive. The difference, I would argue, is that the Irish were acually able to grab the levers of power. Notre Dame was run priests either born in Ireland or whose parents were born in Ireland. It was filled with first-generation Irish-Americans from Chicago - a city run by Irish Americans. Look, if the Birmingham Black Barons had somehow become an MLB team and still had black ownership, there would not be a major outcry as there is for a name change. One of the many problems with "Redskins" and all the Native American team names is that we do treat it like "Celtics" or "Vikings" or something similar - a noble ancient culture that is extinct. Except....in this case, it's not extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 For all of you internet research enthusists, here's my take: The internet is a great place to start your research, but it should never be the ending point. You may look at a blog, website, etc. that supports a position, but check the source material cited in the article and go straight to that. If there is none, don't cite to it as an authority on your subject. Online sources are fine as long as they are supported, just like any other secondary print source. Wikipedia is a great example-- go to the references and click on those. Sometimes you find something useful, sometimes you see that the reference does not actually support what the wikipedia author is telling you, and sometimes you see that the source is garbage, or that you have to dig deeper to get to something that has a sound basis. For anyone interested in the various surveys discussed on this issue, and how a survey is supposed to be designed, check out this link: http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/stat-data/surveys.htm The one thing i've seen thrown around a bit in this thread is the "700 people is not enough of a poll because there are 5.2 million native americans in this country argument." This statement makes sense on its face, until you take a look at the math, and realize that 700 people, if chosen randomly (or in this case as randomly as possible) should give you a reliable figure for the entire population. One problem with repeating a survey such as the Annenberg survey is that in 2002 most people still had land line telephones. Today, far few do. But only landline phones are generally used in random polling, so this method likely would not produce a truly random sample of a population, whereas in 2002 it was much more reliable. Sort of creates a problem moving forward, because how else can you truly identify a random population. Telephone surveying was the standard up until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 To be fair, look up the history of how the Irish were treated in the UK and here pretty lousy. Not as bad as the Native American, but horrible nonetheless. And the, you get to be represented by a leprechaun. It would be easy to choose to see this as offensive. What the English did to the Irish is as bad as what we did to Native Americans (arguably even worse). But, yeah, we didn't exactly offer them comfort and a hot beverage when shipped here as slaves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 My point with Irish weren't to compare the names, but to highlight cultural infringement. Which I think is actually more driving force... 'Change the Mascot' But it was a derogatory that they adopted as their own. Still appropriate in this day of no fighting, no bullying? IDK, but I would be sick if they changed it. And yes, the Irish were the original slaves. Do you think England wanted to sail to Adrica for free labor when they had whole country right next door. The first slaves in the West Indies were Irish. They died pretty quick and skin not fit for climate... Hence African slaves. If not for lack of pigmentation, Irish would have been used without hesitation And Lombardi, Celtics aren't extinct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Well, it looks like we are finally hearing some in the media speak out on our behalf. Al Michaels recently spoke with Jim Rome on Showtime. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/13/dan-snyder-on-name-change-over-my-dead-body/ Unfortunately, that's not really a very good job of speaking out "on our behalf" lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.