TD_washingtonredskins Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 That is a poorly worded question. It should be "Do you find the name of the Washington Redskins to be offensive." Yes or no. Pretty simple. Anything more complicated than that seems like someone trying to trick or confuse the respondents. How many of the 67% were voting for racial but are not offended and don't think it is racist? I would go even more direct: "Are you personally offended by the Washington Redskins' name?" Even saying "find offensive" leaves open the possibility that someone who isn't offended would "understand why others are" or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 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? To answer your question, yes I believe this is a good analogy to what is happening in the Redskins case. Of course, my comments were tongue in cheek. But playing along here, the Supreme Court has recognized several categories of "protected classes," i.e. identifiable characteristics that have traditionally been used to discriminate upon groups of people, segments of the population, etc. (1) Sex, (2) Race, (3) Religion, (4) national origin are four that come to mind. Wicca is a religion. And unlike native americans, Wiccans are often reluctant to reveal their religious beliefs publicly due to fear of prejudice, intolerance, violence, and employment discrimination. So finding a large group of Wiccans who are vocal about various insensitive uses of "wizardly" imagery would be all the more difficult. Add to the that the fact that the number of MWPs in the U.S. is likely much smaller than the number of native americans. http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_nbr3.htm You are far less likely to see any organized resistance to something like the "Wizards" or their logo. Doesn't mean that some MWP isn't highly offended, it just means that opportunity are pro-rata numbers are not there. Now, with that now said, what I would like to see is some consistency. You seem to be of the mindset that a very small portion of a subject population that feels "offended" by a particular display is significant enough to demand change. I understand that you simply do not have the time to take up all of these separate causes (and judging by the amount of time you've already spent in this thread, you're either on vacation or about to be fired ), but is the Wiccan/Wizards issue any less valid when taking a step back and looking at this. Disclaimer: No, I am not a Wiccan, nor do I support the removal of the Redskins name, logo, fight song, or other imagery associated with the team. Nor do I have any problem with the Wizards. In fact, if anyone ever came up to me on the street and told me that my redskins hat, jersey, t-shirt, etc. "offended" them, I have tell them to shove-it, unless they were heavily armed or I was with my kids (or someone else's kids were around). I am very consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwback37 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Personally, I've always compared virulent racist George Preston Marshall to those hippies making bracelets in Santa Fe. So, I point out the logical difference between the owners of sports teams and the "group who annihilated" Native American peoples and not only do you respond with sarcasm, you stereotype artists and people who have an actual appreciation for Native American culture as "hippies"? My bad for actually trying to engage you in civil debate. No worries, I won't be reading or responding to any more of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 lol.. wiccans. Can we at least stick to things that are real? before long we'll be wondering if the name "Knights" offends Jedis. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Those are the original words, but he forgot "fight for ole Dixie." Those were not the original words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 lol.. wiccans. Can we at least stick to things that are real? before long we'll be wondering if the name "Knights" offends Jedis. ~Bang of course they are real. who do you think is driving around all those cars with the "coexist" and "my other car is a broom" bumper stickers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram29jackson Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Buffalo Bill and cowboys killed lots of Indians I'm guessing I'm sure a few Rams ran into a few Indians somewhere in history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Interesting to see all of the NA associations listed, and i'd bet a 6 pk that you could pick any single member and find they belong to many of these associations, so it clouds the reality window a bit, especially when one can spread their viewpoints across many platforms. Or maybe they're just sick and tired of this PC world where super minority groups dictate how everyone sees or hears things. A minority group that our forefathers s##!&*d over! Hey America is great! My father (was) and I am a Veteran and we'll admit that our Country makes mistakes. PC can get out of hand but it's more than that in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I'm at the point where I think it's best for ESPN,Wise,and all the others,politicians,and lastly fans from both sides to butt the hell out,(for some stop talking around them),and let the Native Americans decide amongst themselves about the names and images and then let us know what's cool and what's not and we go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 A minority group that our forefathers s##!&*d over! Hey America is great! My father (was) and I am a Veteran and we'll admit that our Country makes mistakes. PC can get out of hand but it's more than that in this case. Whose forefathers do you speak of? Mine were in Europe until the mid 20s. They left because my Great Grandfather was smart enough to see what was happening in Germany and Russia and everywhere else. My ancestors had absolutely no involvement in ****ting on any Native americans. And that stands for a GREAT many of us. A LOT of us cannot trace our american roots back past 100 or so years when the great European migrations occured. (By the way, those people who **** on the Natives **** on all of our families too. Immigration was not well received in the decades surrounding the turn of the 20th century.) see how hard it is to make the white guilt "look what WE did to them" argument? This is a sideshow anyway,, there's a simple way to solve this issue. Ask the native Americans. If you pro-changers really gave a damn about doing what the native wanted, you'd demand to know what that actually might BE. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I'm at the point where I think it's best for ESPN,Wise,and all the others,politicians,and lastly fans from both sides to butt the hell out,(for some stop talking around the),and let the Native Americans decide amongst themselves about the names and images and then let us know what's cool and what's not and we go from there. Agreed. I've held to the belief that if a majority of Native Americans finds it offensive, then sure change it. But we shouldn't change it because UnWise Mike says it's offensive. We shouldn't change it because a few newspapers and writers won't say "Redskins" in print or TV. Change it because the Native Americans are truly offended by the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Exactly. Ask them. It's only polite, and would be such a change from the typical way the world blunders about it's business. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I think if the Natives/Indians went about this the wrong way. If they eliminated the use of Redskins and Red (implying skin color) on their reservations, then it would have went a long way. They could use that as an example of 'Hey the word is racist and we won't stand for it being used.' If they did that from the beginning, then I would probably see where they are coming from and I too would hope the Redskins would change the name. However that didn't happen and still has not happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Whose forefathers do you speak of? Mine were in Europe until the mid 20s. They left because my Great Grandfather was smart enough to see what was happening in Germany and Russia and everywhere else. Oh Yeah???? What part of Europe? They better not have been in one of those northern Italian towns that my great-grandfather was driven out of. Wasn't easy to have to take a boat to America, only to end up immediately in West Virginia (not the groovy places like NY or Philly or DC). He made it to DC though around 1915. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 A minority group that our forefathers s##!&*d over! Well, if you're going to hang your hat on that theory, don't stop the domino there, go back to Britian, all the way back to China, and beyond. History will show why migration of the human race was important in establishing secular beliefs and all that other good stuff. If you want, just go back to the Revolutionary War, and its interesting; you will find that this country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free, so the irony is quite conclusive. Besides, its not like the indians back then were just sitting around smoking peace pipes and chasing bulls while we simply walked up to them and killed them; they executed many many non-indians, namely good ol' whitey, in ambush-style attacks, but its our fault because we won so we must bow to their every demand. No. Its society in general; its turning into a sissified sniffling little 4 yr old kid who got his toy taken away from him so hes gonna hold his breath until he gets it back. Sorry but I don't buy into that type of passive logic. Every single day for over a month now, i've seen on Yahoo, tv, radio, regarding this stupid name change demand. Slowly but surely its put out there for traction purposes, to keep mentioning it or writing about it to get it in people's heads, a la brainwashing. There are groups of NAs who disapprove, and groups who DO approve; so let them fight it out and then the winner can bring their issues to the table, but until then no one should have to alter/change something they believe in just because your neighbor doesn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Let me make one thing perfectly clear...(who said that before me ?) I believe that most of our fans who want to retain the name "Redskins" are traditionalists NOT racists. I agree completely. I also think that traditionalists have a tendency to automatically defend everything they like or grew up with, even things that really maybe should no longer be defended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Whose forefathers do you speak of? Mine were in Europe until the mid 20s. They left because my Great Grandfather was smart enough to see what was happening in Germany and Russia and everywhere else. My ancestors had absolutely no involvement in ****ting on any Native americans. And that stands for a GREAT many of us. A LOT of us cannot trace our american roots back past 100 or so years when the great European migrations occured. (By the way, those people who **** on the Natives **** on all of our families too. Immigration was not well received in the decades surrounding the turn of the 20th century.) see how hard it is to make the white guilt "look what WE did to them" argument? This is a sideshow anyway,, there's a simple way to solve this issue. Ask the native Americans. If you pro-changers really gave a damn about doing what the native wanted, you'd demand to know what that actually might BE. ~Bang That does seem vaguely familiar for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg 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 (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 .... Can you tell me why I should dismiss all this? You're aware that there are 562 Federally recognized and 614 unrecognized tribes in the USA right? That makes 1,176 tribes. http://www.ncai.org/about-tribes/Indians_101.pdf The list you supplied contains 83 organizations with a few tribes sprinkled in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Those are the original words, but he forgot "fight for ole Dixie." "Fight for Ole Dixie" only appeared for a few years in the late 50s and early 60s. I can't imagine why those words were added at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 "Fight for Ole Dixie" only appeared for a few years in the late 50s and early 60s. I can't imagine why those words were added at that time. Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the Redskins were the team of the South for the longest time. It's how my family became fans in the 40s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I agree completely. I also think that traditionalists have a tendency to automatically defend everything they like or grew up with, even things that really maybe should no longer be defended. Well, this doesn't pertain to everything, but what right does one have over another to suddenly change their mind about something being offensive? It is told or taught in one form or another, mis-interpreted by some, and exploited by a few, and its all because of the way a certain few see it. If a group of us Redskin fans got together and decided that the name 'Cowboys' was offensive, does that hold water? Not all Redskins fans, only 50, said it is offensive and it must be changed. By the logic of some, it does. Is that right? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 "Fight for Ole Dixie" only appeared for a few years in the late 50s and early 60s. I can't imagine why those words were added at that time. For the same reason that all those Southern states suddenly changed their state flags to incorporate Confederate Battle Flags. You know, tradition and heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 No, you guys are right. It's because all things Redskins since the beginning of time are built on a foundation of our hatred for people with dark skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Well, this doesn't pertain to everything, but what right does one have over another to suddenly change their mind about something being offensive? It is told or taught in one form or another, mis-interpreted by some, and exploited by a few, and its all because of the way a certain few see it. If a group of us Redskin fans got together and decided that the name 'Cowboys' was offensive, does that hold water? Not all Redskins fans, only 50, said it is offensive and it must be changed. By the logic of some, it does. Is that right? No. Bring back "colored people!" Bring back "colored people!" No, you guys are right. It's because all things Redskins since the beginning of time are built on a foundation of our hatred for people with dark skin. Do you really want to go down THIS path with THIS team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Well, this doesn't pertain to everything, but what right does one have over another to suddenly change their mind about something being offensive? It is told or taught in one form or another, mis-interpreted by some, and exploited by a few, and its all because of the way a certain few see it. If a group of us Redskin fans got together and decided that the name 'Cowboys' was offensive, does that hold water? Not all Redskins fans, only 50, said it is offensive and it must be changed. By the logic of some, it does. Is that right? No. It that what is happening? No. The word "redskin" fell out of vogue as a good descriptor for Native Americans decades long time ago. Just like "colored people" fell out of vogue as a descriptor for African Americans. The use of the word "redskin" is only being kept alive by this football team. You may think the name doesn't need to change, that's fine, but stop screaming that this is some liberal-commie plot to sissify our society blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.