Larry Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Larry, Yea, I know they can leave their land at will, I was referring to U.S. law enforcement extending into native land, which it does not, unless given permission. A police officer cannot simply drive onto native land chasing a burglary suspect or car thief without permission. He also can't chase across city, county, or state lines (without permission). And yet, people from Arkansas can still vote, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 But Harry Potter changed all that. Wizards are cool now. Harry Potter just furthers the stereotype, as does the Wizards logo. Not all male wiccan practitioners ("MWPs," I will never used the word "Wizard" in my commentary hence forth after the closed quote) wear cloaks and pointy hats, and I doubt any of them really cast spells. But they're a small segment of the population, so who really cares, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 "Wizard" is a derogatory term used to describe a man who practices the Wiccan religion. Many men accused of being "Wizards" were burned at the stake, hung, drowned, etc., mostly in Europe, but also in the U.S. Wiccan practitioners have been discriminated against for hundreds, if not thousands of years throughout the world, yet you bandy this term about as if its just the name of our local professional basketball team, when in fact its much, much more than that. So do you think this is a good metaphor for what is happening in the Redskins case? I can see why you would, as this line of reasoning clearly mirrors that given by those who would have us change our mascot. I suppose we might follow a similar line of reasoning with other mascots too, like "Fighting Irish" or "Saints," for example. Catholics in general and Irish Catholics in particular have likewise been the victims of horrible prejudice. The main difference I see is that there is no organized resistance from Irish, or Catholics, or members of the Wiccan religion, whereas Native Americans have organized in protest of our mascot. Why do we not see a similar outcry from members of the Wiccan religion? Would it make a difference if we did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Destino, actually I find your pic by your username offensive to people with skinny legs ! lol JK. Honestly, no I do not. One does reserve the actual 'right' to be offended by the name, but lets be honest; this is nothing more than an attention-getting 3 ring circus, and the more bleeding heart people who feel its their duty to tell you or me what we can name or say or do, the worse this country will get. The spine of America is slowly being pulled out, mostly by lawyers selling their souls for a dollar or their 5 minutes of fame. There are things that I don't like, but I'm not on a soap box looking for supporters, I just avoid them; I don't like the idea of gangs, but I'm certainly not gonna walk down the back streets of L.A. holding a picket sign expressing my views; I'd make it about 15 feet and that's from running ! I'm not saying native americans, Indians, whatever you want to call them, have to like and embrace the name redskins, just do what this country was based on, which is freedom of choice. They can simply choose to not be supportive of the name, period, and this whole thing will blow over in 2 days, but others, mainly non-native americans, are pushing this issue for their personal gain. There is not a single thing in this country that everyone agrees on; that's what makes this country still the greatest in the world, but this idea of changing something because a small minority doesn't agree with it doesn't do it any favors. Look at the movement in the 60's with anti-war rallies and 'make love not war' cries; if we gave into that theory, Cuba would own us right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The main difference I see is that there is no outcry from Irish, or Catholics, or members of the Wiccan religion. Why do we not see a similar outcry? Would it make a difference if we did? Nor from natives, either. That's because 90% of them approve of it. Remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I'm not saying native americans, Indians, whatever you want to call them, have to like and embrace the name redskins, just do what this country was based on, which is freedom of choice. They can simply choose to not be supportive of the name, period. . . No, you're just telling them they can like it or deal with it. I disagree with your assertion. Yes, if a significant number of people ask you not to do something, because it offends them, then yes, simple politeness suggests that, well, at the very least, if it doesn't cost you too much, you humor them. (And that's the most disparaging way I can think of, to put it. That is not a characterization of how I feel about people who are personally offended about this particular issue.) If natives (and no, I don't even mean "a majority of natives") are actually offended by the name of the team, then I want it changed. Because I do not want to be offending people. (Even if I think they're wrong.) (And frankly, I assert that, if they're offended, then they aren't wrong. You can be wrong about a fact. You can't be wrong about a feeling.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Personally, I invite every single news outlet in Western Civilization, hard copy and internet to stop using the term "Redskin." Let's just get it over with. and at the end of the day. So what If every single news reporter goes out of their way to call the Redskins "the Washington Football team" for the rest of time until the end of time. Who gives a ****? I don't care. The Fans will still know what the team's name is, and you can have a clear conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 for the record, the protest against the Chiefs has been going on at least as long as the protest against the Redskins, and same goes for th Braves. And the Indians have been dealing with protests even longer. (and of the group, I'd say they are the most offensive.) The Chiefs have had that same small group of protesters at Arrowhead like we've had at RFK and FedEx. What will be interesting to see is if the herd blindly charges along with this one. I am wondering if she gets the same support among the Peter Kings and Bob Costas' of the world. After all, if she's offended, well, that's reason enough, eh? Chances are the Chiefs name 'controversy' will poll out the same way the Redskins does. It'll be interesting to see if it matters this time. WJason whitlock is based in KC, isn't he? And to think,, they could have gone pumpkin picking. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I think when they really start going hard core for the other Native themed sports teams, that is when the tide will truly turn. People will see these nuts for what they truly are. As we have known all along, this won't end with Redskins. Redskins going down will only be the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 What if the Patowomeck agree to become part of the team in an official capacity, and decide that the name "Redskins" suits them just fine? Then they could declare war on Amanda Blackhorse if she insulted them. ~Bong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Harry Potter just furthers the stereotype, as does the Wizards logo. Not all male wiccan practitioners ("MWPs," I will never used the word "Wizard" in my commentary hence forth after the closed quote) wear cloaks and pointy hats, and I doubt any of them really cast spells. But they're a small segment of the population, so who really cares, right? So they don't dress like the logo, or Harry Potter, and they don't actually have magical powers? Maybe we should stop calling them wizards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 for the record, the protest against the Chiefs has been going on at least as long as the protest against the Redskins, and same goes for th Braves. And the Indians have been dealing with protests even longer. (and of the group, I'd say they are the most offensive.) The Chiefs have had that same small group of protesters at Arrowhead like we've had at RFK and FedEx. Yeah, but the announcement of a lawsuit for 9 Billion (!) is an attempt to make a splash in the national press. And to some it is going to seem strange that an organization with "Indian" in their name is suing an organization over their use of the word "Indian". And I do get that the organization suing is actually NA, it still will be perceived as hypocritical and frivolous due to the amount of damages sought. edit: their, there, they're Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Nor from natives, either. That's because 90% of them approve of it. Remember? It would be a relief if Native Americans were not offended by our mascot, although I am not entirely convinced that is the case. I'll list three reasons for my uncertainty: (1) A recent study found that 67% of Native Americans agreed with the statement "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol." sources: http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143 (2) These tribes have issued statements of opposition to our team's name: Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Comanche Nation of Oklahoma The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington) Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan) Hoh Indian Tribe Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California) Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan) Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan) Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin) Oneida Indian Nation (New York) Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Navajo Nation Council Penobscot Nation Poarch Band of Creek Indians Samish Indian Nation (Washington) Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho) Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota) The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota) United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) (3) These Native American organizations have issued statements of opposition to our team's name: Advocates for American Indian Children (California) American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota) American Indian Movement 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) Native American Journalists Association 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 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) Can you tell me why I should dismiss all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 It would be a relief if Native Americans were not offended by our mascot, although I am not entirely convinced that is the case. I'll list three reasons for my uncertainty: (1) A recent study found that 67% of Native Americans agreed with the statement "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol." sources: http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143 OK, this has been posted a number of times but that poll is far from scientific. The guy who conducted it is against cultural appropriation in sports teams, he conducted the entire thing at two "pow wows" with no extra information on where, when or the theme of the gathering (perhaps he was a headliner giving a talk on how inappropriate the use of NA imagery is?), the question is "Do you find Redskins racial or racist", results for 3 questions are not given, etc, etc. As to the groups that does seem significant but if you look at 50 Senators signing a letter and the polls of the population at large you will see that leadership does not always directly represent the opinion of the people. Add: in his chart of results it is % who see it "racist", not "racial or racist". I believe many here (including myself) would like to see a repeat of the Annenberg poll, but there is some debate over NA purity requirements. Add Add: I find the ommision of the results of question 3: "Professional sports teams should be allowed to use racial terms and names like Redskins" particularly telling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Can you tell me why I should dismiss all this? I can Did they ask their constituents what they thought before they issued their statements? Most of those groups seem to be only a few people trying to speak for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 OK, this has been posted a number of times but that poll is far from scientific. The guy who conducted it is against cultural appropriation in sports teams, he conducted the entire thing at two "pow wows" with no extra information on where, when or the theme of the gathering (perhaps he was a headliner giving a talk on how inappropriate the use of NA imagery is?), the question is "Do you find Redskins racial or racist", results for 3 questions are not given, etc, etc. As to the groups that does seem significant but if you look at 50 Senators signing a letter and the polls of the population at large you will see that leadership does not always directly represent the opinion of the people. I agree the poll has problems. However it is a recent poll, and it did at least check to make sure they were polling actual Native Americans, two things which cannot be said of the oft-quoted AP poll. As to whether or not the dozens of Native American organizations who oppose our mascot reflect the opinion of their people, I really don't know, but I would not be so quick to dismiss them on the basis of that ignorance. I understand this is uncomfortable for a lot of us, it is uncomfortable for me too. I would nonetheless caution us against confirmation bias and wishful thinking. I'm often amazed at people's ability to dismiss/ignore any evidence that does not fit their worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I can't wait to see "Would you go up to a NA and call them Chief in their face?" Welcome to the party Chief fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I understand this is uncomfortable for a lot of us, it is uncomfortable for me too. I would nonetheless caution us against confirmation bias and wishful thinking. I'm often amazed at people's ability to dismiss/ignore any evidence that does not fit their worldview. I am not terribly uncomfortable wit the idea the name might change. I am po'd at some of the nonsense floated in the argument for the change. And honestly, I have become tired of some of the ridiculous defenses. But that poll is junk, the Annenberg poll asked self identified NAs the question. It has not been replicated. Annenberg is a reputable polling firm. People criticize the poll for the self identification of NA, the old, "well my great great grandma was supposedly Cherokee" aspect, but seriously, are we going to require DNA? How much African blood does one have to have to identify as black? It can get pretty problematic to discern who has a right to express an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 It would be a relief if Native Americans were not offended by our mascot, although I am not entirely convinced that is the case. I'll list three reasons for my uncertainty: I see some others have already informed you with the problems with your "study", so I'll skip it. Could you provide me a link to support the assertion that all of those groups objected to the name? (As opposed to "a person in those groups"?) ---------- For what it's worth, I do know that there's at least one, legitimate group that did, in fact, pass an actual resolution through their actual process, objecting to their name. Somebody posted it, in this thread, I'd say 4-6 months ago? I remember checking out the link provided, and it sure looked to me like yes, this resolution was passed by the actual governing body of a significant (meaning, I'd heard of them) tribe. So, at least as far as I'm concerned, yes, there has been at least one objection that didn't come from some easily dismissed, lone whacko like Harjo or Hallbritter. There's at least one objection that I would consider "real", so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Americans still need to learn that Native Americans are NOT indians. How many times are we going to call them Cherokee Indians? The only Indians on this planet are from India for heavens sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Put it more simply: Do you really think we would have all this fuss if very few people were offended by our mascot? Most political movements I know of seem to require a certain critical mass of people behind them to get going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 http://msn.foxsports.com/kansas-city/story/redskins-indians-will-native-americans-target-the-chiefs-next-062514 Redskins ... Indians ... Will Native Americans target the Chiefs next? KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The Washington Redskins were stripped of their trademark and thrust into the crosshairs of the Capital Beltway. The Cleveland Indians are at the center of a forthcoming federal lawsuit for a reported $9 billion over their smiling "Chief Wahoo" logo. Could the Kansas City Chiefs be under fire next? "I can't say that (someone) is going to be suing the Chiefs," John Learned, who earlier this week revealed plans to launch the American Indian Center of the Great Plains in Kansas City, told FOXSportsKansasCity.com. "But I know there's going to be someone wanting to question the Chiefs and some of the things that they do. "They're going to come after them. I just know they are." Learned, who played football at Kansas under Don Fambrough in the early '70s and later coached volleyball at KU and Missouri-Kansas City, said Native American groups in the area met last December to discuss the Chiefs -- and the political correctness of the nickname and iconography used by the popular NFL franchise -- when an employee at a Belton, Mo., Sonic drive-in arranged this sign adjacent to the restaurant before the Kansas City-Washington game on Dec. 8: <more at link> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Put it more simply: Do you really think we would have all this fuss if very few people were offended by our mascot? Most political movements I know of seem to require a certain critical mass of people behind them to get going. I would posit that social media allows a small number of people to make a lot of noise. Look at the pictures of the demonstrations at games. Typically there are perhaps 10 to 15 people. I know it would be a bit intimidating to go to an arena to demonstrate against the team name, but this is hardly the civil rights movement. Add: And social media allows people who are not really invested in an idea to make a statement. I am a Redskins season ticket holder. I have yet to see a protester. (though I am sure some have been present). I have seen a knucklehead in redface, and a lady dressed in what I would consider a respectful NA costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Interesting this article suggests the Chiefs have their own version of the OAF. "I can't say that (someone) is going to be suing the Chiefs," John Learned, who earlier this week revealed plans to launch the American Indian Center of the Great Plains in Kansas City, told FOXSportsKansasCity.com. "But I know there's going to be someone wanting to question the Chiefs and some of the things that they do.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Redskins PR doesn't learn http://instagram.com/p/poWTQrPR7c/?modal=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.