Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 To be fair and honest, FedEx shareholders did not object per-se. A very small portion of the FedEx shareholders raised a proposal to end the sponsorship and were summarily CRUSHED (221 voted to end the sponsorship, and 253 million voted to keep it). 3 financial firms released a joint statement to try to pressure FedEx today. EDIT: Oneida and the 3 financial investors are trying to threaten FedEx into ending the sponsorship. Internal shareholder proposal was defeated as I said 253M - 221 and FedEx wants to censor that proposal in end of year filing because it was representative of less than 1/1000000 of 1%. Does anyone really think 1/1000000 of 1% should in any way impact a companies operation or even be recognized? I want to quote this because in the back and forth about cartoon mascots this might get lost...and it shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 But a leprechaun is a mythical creature if I'm not mistaken.... Natives are real ppl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 To be fair and honest, FedEx shareholders did not object per-se. A very small portion of the FedEx shareholders raised a proposal to end the sponsorship and were summarily CRUSHED (221 voted to end the sponsorship, and 253 million voted to keep it). 3 financial firms released a joint statement to try to pressure FedEx today. EDIT: Oneida and the 3 financial investors are trying to threaten FedEx into ending the sponsorship. Internal shareholder proposal was defeated as I said 253M - 221 and FedEx wants to censor that proposal in end of year filing because it was representative of less than 1/1000000 of 1%. Does anyone really think 1/1000000 of 1% should in any way impact a companies operation or even be recognized? No. Absolutely not. The thing that could sway FedEx is bad press, especially if it starts to get momentum in the media and on twitter. Worth keeping an eye in but I don't see those internal numbers you posted causing FedEx to do anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 What some need to understand is that they aren't gonna stop at Redskins, they've stated that they're targeting other teams as well. Redskins are just on the top of their list. I don't care about other teams. This isn't about other teams. This is about our team and our reputation and our future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I suspect not voting in that shareholder vote also counted as a "no" vote, right Pope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 In terms of the celtics logo. I've never met/ heard of an Irish person being offended by the Dame logo but if there were one, I could understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 What some need to understand is that they aren't gonna stop at Redskins, they've stated that they're targeting other teams as well. Redskins are just on the top of their list.What do I care if they force the Indians or Braves to change their names? This issue is 100% about the Redskins for me. I would join them is saying the Indians logo is racist, because it clearly is. In terms of the celtics logo. I've never met/ heard of an Irish person being offended by the Dame logo but if there were one, I could understand My question is this: how is the potentially offensive nature of Notre Dames mascot relevant to this discussion? Let's say it is, what changes in the debate over the Redskins name being offensive? Nothing. Ok now let's say it's not, has anything changed in the Redskins debate? Again, no. So why does it keep coming up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Fair point Tino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You are applying a double standard. Seriously, explain to me how the Cleveland Indian logo is offensive, yet the Leprechaun isn't? Is it because Irish people are white? That my friend is a double standard. You and Lombardi made the stretch to compare the Indian logo to Sambo. That, is being silly. Good thing though. Your wish is granted because I don't take you seriously. you don't believe this NOBODY believes this. Notre Dame took on the name "fightin irish" because THEY were irish, and they were claiming it for THEMSELVES, about THEMSELVES. But that doesn't even matter..... its is a total bull**** worthless analogy even more fundamentally because nobody IS offended by the notre dame mascot. you can claim to think they are equivalent (although you don't believe it is true) and you can try to assert that they are equivalent (although you don't believe it is true), but they aren't. YOu can't dfine what SHOULD be offensive. You just can't. The definition of offensive is that people take offense.... not that people manufacture a fake argument about why their panties SHOULD hurt. it is a BS circular argument to form a completely bogus equivalence... just so that you can say "see they aren't equivalent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You know what, screw it, just change the damn name already. But they better change every team name/mascot associated with Native Americans across the U.S. at every level (elementary school, middle school, high school, all colleges, all pro teams, etc.) including all the Native American ones located on the reservations (offer that agreement to them as part of the settlement to change all names). Then we can just all move on. Except all the Native Americans who root for those sports teams because they use such names. They don't get to move on. They get something meaningful taken from them by a small group of people that did not represent the majority. They do get to go back to their tough lives that the groups who grabbed the national spotlight did nothing to actually improve despite gaining the ability to draw more attention to it with that national spotlight. I'm sure the victory of words will feed and clothe their people sufficiently though. But the PC brigade can at least comfort itself in knowing that it helped start the removal of all NA imagery from all sports, much like what happened in college, and helped make Native Americans more irrelevant in the lives of everyone else, which likely will worsen the real problems they face, which the PC police did nothing to actually improve. Meanwhile that evil racist Snyder will still have a charity up that actually does help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yes, removing Native American imagery from all sports teams will make the lives of Native Americans worse. Because, of course it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I was referencing those that were saying that they should target the Chiefs, Blackhawks, Braves, etc... They already planned on doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Native Americans and organizations opposed[edit] The following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:Tribes[edit]Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians[155] Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma[155] Comanche Nation of Oklahoma[155] The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)[155] Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan) Hoh Indian Tribe[156] Inter Tribal Council of Arizona[157] Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes[158] Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)[155] Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan) Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)[159] Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)[155] Oneida Indian Nation (New York)[160] Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin[155] Navajo Nation Council[98] Penobscot Nation[161] Poarch Band of Creek Indians[162] Samish Indian Nation (Washington)[163] Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)[164] Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)[165] Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota) The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)[166] United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)[167] Organizations[edit]Advocates for American Indian Children (California) American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota) American Indian Movement[168] American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University American Indian High Education Consortium American Indian College Fund Americans for Indian Opportunity Association on American Indian Affairs Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina) Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA) Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota) Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine) Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance First Peoples Worldwide Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California) Governor’s Interstate Indian Council Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin) HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights Kansas Association for Native American Education Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana) Minnesota Indian Education Association National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) National Indian Child Welfare Association National Indian Education Association National Indian Youth Council National Native American Law Student Association Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)[169] Native American Journalists Association[170] Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio Native American Journalists Association Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native Voice Network Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan) North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs North Dakota Indian Education Association Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan) Ohio Center for Native American Affairs San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas Southern California Indian Center St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs Tennessee Native Veterans Society Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism[171] The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center Wisconsin Indian Education Association WIEA “Indian” Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin) Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan) Youth “Indian” Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin) It's as obvious as the nose on your face, bro. Clearly something's amiss, cuz the data that people like Sheehan always bring up is that there's no polling with statistical data that says it's offensive, as if that's all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This all could've worked in the redskins favor. The redskins have a very proud and powerful mascot, a positive image, something that people could be proud of. This apparently USED to work in the Redskins favor. ......... unfortunately it looks like this proud connection is breaking down. that isn't an feeling that can be defined as "should" or "should not" .. people ARE taking offense. period. it is either a virtuous circle (pride begets pride which builds firmer support for the use of the imagery and slogans) or a vicious circle (offense begins to form, and the clodhammered defense of the imagery and slogans leads to greater offense ...rinse wash repeat) for whatever reason the vicious circle has started --- and yes it probably IS because of some set of jackasses with personal axes to grind, and faulty logic contrived to make it start-- but it doesn;t matter WHY the vicious circle has started, it matters that it appears to have taken traction and at this point is accelerating ---- the vicious circle COULD potentially end.... but it won't. and it won't BECAUSE of a subset of the people that are arguing against changing the team name and imagery are booger eating morons that just can't help throwing kerosene on teh fire and keep helping to feed the vicious circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I suspect not voting in that shareholder vote also counted as a "no" vote, right Pope? I would imagine not attending allowed the board to vote via proxy on your behalf. But that shows you the level of concern among shareholders. Only 221 were 'offended' enough to warrant checking a box and mailing a slip of paper at no expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This all could've worked in the redskins favor. The redskins have a very proud and powerful mascot, a positive image, something that people could be proud of. This apparently USED to work in the Redskins favor. ......... unfortunately it looks like this proud connection is breaking down. that isn't an feeling that can be defined as "should" or "should not" .. people ARE taking offense. period. it is either a virtuous circle (pride begets pride which builds firmer support for the use of the imagery and slogans) or a vicious circle (offense begins to form, and the clodhammered defense of the imagery and slogans leads to greater offense ...rinse wash repeat) for whatever reason the vicious circle has started --- and yes it probably IS because of some set of jackasses with personal axes to grind, and faulty logic contrived to make it start-- but it doesn;t matter WHY the vicious circle has started, it matters that it appears to have taken traction and at this point is accelerating ---- the vicious circle COULD potentially end.... but it won't. and it won't BECAUSE of a subset of the people that are arguing against changing the team name and imagery are booger eating morons that just can't help throwing kerosene on teh fire and keep helping to feed the vicious circle. Yep, they screwed it up long ago and are now the chickens are coming home to roost. Cuz now anything they do is seen as patronizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Clearly something's amiss, cuz the data that people like Sheehan always bring up is that there's no polling that says it's offensive, as if that's all that matters. I don't think there is anything amiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Let's draw two caricatures. One of President Bush (Sr or Jr, doesn't matter) eating watermelon. The other of President Obama eating watermelon. Don't you think one caricature would garner more backlash than the other? I see that argument as explaining why ND's or the Celtics mascot/logo is ok and other mascots/logos (like the old Braves one or Indians one) have been challenged. Without a repeated history of persecution here in the US - the Irish mascot/logo will always be accepted. So, in other words, white people are fair game? Also, Irish were discriminated against in the US when they first migrated here. Just to add, although I'm mostly Irish, I'm not taking the position to change the Celtics mascot. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards on subjects like these. you don't believe this NOBODY believes this. Notre Dame took on the name "fightin irish" because THEY were irish, and they were claiming it for THEMSELVES, about THEMSELVES. But that doesn't even matter..... its is a total bull**** worthless analogy even more fundamentally because nobody IS offended by the notre dame mascot. you can claim to think they are equivalent (although you don't believe it is true) and you can try to assert that they are equivalent (although you don't believe it is true), but they aren't. YOu can't dfine what SHOULD be offensive. You just can't. The definition of offensive is that people take offense.... not that people manufacture a fake argument about why their panties SHOULD hurt. it is a BS circular argument to form a completely bogus equivalence... just so that you can say "see they aren't equivalent". It's not BS. It's the same damn thing. Double standard. You're good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Except all the Native Americans who root for those sports teams because they use such names. They don't get to move on. They get something meaningful taken from them by a small group of people that did not represent the majority. They do get to go back to their tough lives that the groups who grabbed the national spotlight did nothing to actually improve despite gaining the ability to draw more attention to it with that national spotlight. I'm sure the victory of words will feed and clothe their people sufficiently though. But the PC brigade can at least comfort itself in knowing that it helped start the removal of all NA imagery from all sports, much like what happened in college, and helped make Native Americans more irrelevant in the lives of everyone else, which likely will worsen the real problems they face, which the PC police did nothing to actually improve. Meanwhile that evil racist Snyder will still have a charity up that actually does help them. Im 100% against the name change It was more of a rant stating if you change this, everything needs to be changed. Because the NAs that are not offended, evidently don't have a say because some NAs are offended. And then it goes back to "what percentage of NAs has to be offended to force a change?", then the Government is setting metrics on controversial topics. Which opens up even more issues. I don't think there is a winning outcome regardless of what happens when looking at it from both sides. I mean, if they don't force a name change, they still basically are telling everyone that because X% of NAs were not offended, it didn't warrant a change. Which means they are putting an actual measurable figure that determines what is offensive/not offensive. If they do force the name to be changed, they are establishing an actual measurable figure that says X% of said group/people is what is needed for something to be considered offensive and bring forth change (regardless of what the topic/issue is - company names, logos, restaurants, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I've never, in all my years, heard a person of Irish descent complain about the Notre Dame mascot. Maybe it's because Irish people aren't whiners? What if a group of Irish liberals in college formed a group in five years to change the name and logo of the Celtics because they are offended? Would you side for their cause or simply say "they are the vast minority, so they shouldn't get their way"? Here's the hard cold facts about the Redskins name. The data does NOT support a name change. Those advocating for the name change haven't quoted one reliable poll that support their view. They don't because they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You realize some of those groups have like 4 members total (not saying they all do but research some of them) like harjos morningstar institute? last i checked they didnt appear to have a website or an actual office. its not clear if there are any actual employees. interesting. btw, w richard west, jr (last guy on that list above) is wrong about the name, which takes me back to the 'why are you offended?' point. the man is offended by a word whose definition he is apparently mistaken about. i suspect every other person on that lists subscribes to the same incorrect story about the words origins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You are applying a double standard. Seriously, explain to me how the Cleveland Indian logo is offensive, yet the Leprechaun isn't? Is it because Irish people are white? That my friend is a double standard. You and Lombardi made the stretch to compare the Indian logo to Sambo. That, is being silly. Good thing though. Your wish is granted because I don't take you seriously. The Leprechaun is a mythological creature. A Native American is an actual human being. The Leprechaun looks like, well, a leprechaun, I suppose. Having not see a leprechaun I can't actually attest to that. Chief Wahoo looks like the Me Heap Big Chief stereotype of a Native American that was extremely common in the pop culture of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. It also steals a lot of the imagery from black charicatures. (The Huge Smile). It's also straight up Red Dye #5 red. The Fighting Irish nickname was chosen by Irish American students attending a university run by Irish-born or Irish American priests in response -in part - to some of the Anti-Catholic bigotry their football team was facing. There is no real issue of cultural appropriation unless you find St. Patricks Day to be really offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Anyone not advocating a complete and clean break from the Redskins name, color, logo and Indian themes (**** it I ain't calling them Natives since they don't seem to have an issue being called a completely different country on the other side of the ****ing world) and what it represents, IF and WHEN it's needed to be changed, needs to step back, take a breath and think it all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I ask those that want to change it, if it's changed, then what? What's next? Will this be the beginning of a group effort in ACTUALLY helping the Native American community? Or is this just a fad, like most of these issues, where you'll feel a sense of false self accomplishment and be able to sleep better at night? I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.