Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 If we changed every single name in the United States that a small percentage of the population stated "offended" them....would anything still have a name after we were done? Yes. Because no one is actually offended by any of the names that people on this thread keep saying people could be offended by. This is the same argument that gay marriage opponents make when they say, "Soon, you'll be able to marry three women and a fish." No, you will not because no one is going to try to marry three women and a fish. Same with the name. No one is actually going to make a sincere case that "Saints" is offensive to Catholics or that Steelers is offensive to....I know....iron ore or something. The NA-themed names in general are problematic because it's an appropriation of a culture that still exists. The debate is complicated by the matter that some members (perhaps a majority) of that community don't mind the appropriation. That's fine. That's their right. The same as it's the right of black rappers to use the N-word even if I largely wish they did not. That's an internal matter within a particular culture. I can have an opinion, but my vote doesn't really count. Where my vote counts is within my life and my own house. And - over the years - I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with Native-themed nicknames. It's not an issue I lose sleep over or one I even think about much outside of this thread. But when I do think of it, my thought is generally "Yea...that's probably a concept that's run its course." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Yes. Because no one is actually offended by any of the names that people on this thread keep saying people could be offended by. This is the same argument that gay marriage opponents make when they say, "Soon, you'll be able to marry three women and a fish." No, you will not because no one is going to try to marry three women and a fish. Same with the name. No one is actually going to make a sincere case that "Saints" is offensive to Catholics or that Steelers is offensive to....I know....iron ore or something. Good analogy. Pretty much nobody's offended by the name of the Redskins, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 If we changed every single name in the United States that a small percentage of the population stated "offended" them....would anything still have a name after we were done? There are a lot of things that have changed in this country over the years because a few people sparked a movement to effect change/reform, against strong opposition. It's nothing new You may see it as just a name and nothing more. The people who are against it (particularly the native americans, who to some degree, are ignored by defense advocates, similar to the ones who are ignored to a large degree by change advocates), may feel that it is more than a just a name. I can't give an accurate opinion, because I do not walk in their shoes, and I don't live their history on a daily basis, where some issues aren't always agreed upon in unison" but clearly, there are native americans that have a problem with it, and they should not be ignored, just like the ones who want to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 One doesn't necessarily have to be "offended" to have an understanding of cultural difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 One doesn't necessarily have to be "offended" to have an understanding of cultural difference. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I think any fan who considers giving up on the team for fickle reasons, such as political party allegiance, in tough times is fairweather regardless of the past. I'm not giving up on the team. I'm supporting the campaign to change my favorite team's name. There's a difference between Monk and Green saying it should be considered, and you who has been active in here, seen all the evidence, and is advocating change based on political parties. Green said, “It deserves and warrants conversation because somebody is saying, ‘Hey, this offends me.'" That's very close to what I'm saying. My reasons for saying we should change the name have nothing to do with political parties, although you keep insisting otherwise. When you are basing your opinions off of which political party members are on which side of the issue then it's about party allegiance, in this case not aligning with one in particular. Rational people look at the actual issue. I'm looking at the actual issue. The actual issue is that the name refers to a race of people who our ancestors systematically and brutally oppressed, and lots of people see it as racist and offensive. I'm uncomfortable with that. The Rush Limbaugh thing is a manner of speaking. You clearly don't understand how polling works and the math behind it. If half of NAs do have phones, and polling showed 90% aren't opposed to the name, what are the odds that those without phones are 90% opposed, making it an even split? Those odds are ridiculously small. But if only half have phones then why did the percentage polled that were NA closely match the total percentage of the population? These are questions for people who actually understand polling rather than just looking for convenient ways to dismiss it so they can satisfy their agenda. You keep throwing out that 90% number is though it is beyond dispute. It isn't. I would imagine the Native Americans without phones are much poorer, and that their poverty might give them a different view of things. Good job on not citing any of those polls and just picking ones that fit your agenda. Cherry-picking at it's finest. The 64% one is ESPN where people could vote a bunch online. You tout that as accurate yet dismiss Annenberg. Yeah, no agenda bias there. Actual polling done has around 80% overall in favor of the name. Leaving aside the irony of your accusation of cherry-picking, I think it's patently obvious that the tide of popular opinion is changing. This thread itself is evidence of that. Your perspective is a foolish one that ignores evidence on the actual issue in favor of superficial reasons and fear. You favor that fear over the actual opinions of most NAs. This dialogue likely won't go anywhere because your perspective is irrational and ignores the actual issue. The rest of this post is an ad hominem and non sequitor, so I don't have much to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 So playing devil's advocate here and using the logic of those who claim the name should change... So you believe the use of Racial Slurs is morally and ethically similar, and is equally severe of a trangression, as over paying for bad free agents? The point of that analogy was that you can be a fan of the team without supporting everything they do. The "love it or leave it" mentality is asinine. I obviously think the issue of the team using a racial mascot that many people consider a slur is more severe. It's silly to decide that you're in favor of changing the name just because there are a few idiots who support keeping it. When 80-90% of the population is on one side, there's going to be a few knuckleheads in that group. We really need to stop throwing these numbers around in such an authoritative way. I think the explanation is quite simple. The NCAI is a political organization. They have their own agenda which is more generically to remove all Indian symbolism from sports teams, particularly commercially successful sports teams. And I think think this is a reasonable debatable idea. Should ethnic names and symbols be "co-opted" by companies to make money. Let's be clear what the agenda of NCAI actually is: NCAI was established in 1944 in response to the termination and assimilation policies the US government forced upon tribal governments in contradiction of their treaty rights and status as sovereign nations. To this day, protecting these inherent and legal rights remains the primary focus of NCAI. NCAI Mission Protect and enhance treaty and sovereign rights. Secure our traditional laws, cultures, and ways of life for our descendants. Promote a common understanding of the rightful place of tribes in the family of American governments. Improve the quality of life for Native communities and peoples. http://www.ncai.org/about-ncai/mission-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 There are a lot of things that have changed in this country over the years because a few people sparked a movement to effect change/reform, against strong opposition. Agreed. This does not, however, in any way even imply that this is one of those cases. We really need to stop throwing these numbers around in such an authoritative way. No. We don't. It's the most authoritative estimate on the planet. And by a sizable margin. And it will continue to be, until it gets replaced by another, equally authoritative estimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Good analogy. Pretty much nobody's offended by the name of the Redskins, too. Then who are these people who for decades have been passionately fighting to get it changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Then who are these people who for decades have been passionately fighting to get it changed? I said "pretty much nobody", not "not one single person in the entire world". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I said "pretty much nobody", not "not one single person in the entire world". I view such keep-the-name advocates' descriptions of the opposition as "pretty much nobody" to be counterproductive to the cause. AS do the Redskins themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 That wasn't my point. My point was what his own supposed colleagues and friends resorted to simply because he disagreed with them. How many of us would still want to hang out or even talk with a friend/aquaintence who dug up one bad thing one us from years ago and made it public, then resorted to other personal attacks (which many did) rather than stick to the issue. Not many I bet.Not sure i follow your point here. If I railed against welfare publicly and it later came out I was on welfare, that would make me a flaming hypocrite. And I certainly wouldn't label someone pointing that out as a personal attack. That would be extra gutless on my part IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I view such keep-the-name advocates' descriptions of the opposition as "pretty much nobody" to be counterproductive to the cause. AS do the Redskins themselves. I find describing 9% of a group as brave determined crusaders, and ignoring the fact that they are outnumbered 10 to 1 by people who feel differently to be deceptive and dishonest. And I don't have delusions of speaking on behalf of anyone else, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I find describing 9% of a group as brave determined crusaders, and ignoring the fact that they are outnumbered 10 to 1 by people who feel differently to be deceptive and dishonest. And I don't have delusions of speaking on behalf of anyone else, either. I would quibble with your numbers. And I'm not sure who referred to them as "brave determined crusaders." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Then who are these people who for decades have been passionately fighting to get it changed?Apparently they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Apparently they don't exist. Funny, Would you like to count up how many times I've mentioned both sides of this debate (including their relative numbers), versus how many times you have mentioned the people who agree with you, with no mention that they are vastly outnumbered? Which one of us is ignoring people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Funny, Would you like to count up how many times I've mentioned both sides of this debate (including their relative numbers), versus how many times you have mentioned the people who agree with you, with no mention that they are vastly outnumbered? Which one of us is ignoring people? You're the one who said "pretty much nobody" . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You're the one who said "pretty much nobody" . . . And you're the one who said "they don't exist". Do you feel like backing up your attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You're the one who said "pretty much nobody" . . . if you stood them next to the group of the people they pretend to speak for who happen to disagree with them, they'd be vastly outnumbered. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 It wouldn't even be close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 if you stood them next to the group of the people they pretend to speak for who happen to disagree with them, they'd be vastly outnumbered. ~Bang Frankly I think we are asking the wrong question here. We are asking, "How many are offended?' We should be asking, "Who is offended and why?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 We should be asking, "Who is offended and why?" A small fraction of American Indians who want to gain political notoriety. That's pretty much it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 A small fraction of American Indians who want to gain political notoriety. That's pretty much it. You believe that? You really believe that basically sums up the motives of every NA that is for changing the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 A small fraction of American Indians who want to gain political notoriety. That's pretty much it. I would disagree with that assertion. Yes, some of them are simply the "professionally politically disgruntled". And yes, those are the ones we see on TV. But it's certainly not all of them. ---------- We should be asking, "Who is offended and why?" How convenient that the first thing we should do is, assume that only the offended count. The ones that aren't offended, we shouldn't pay attention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Frankly I think we are asking the wrong question here. We are asking, "How many are offended?' We should be asking, "Who is offended and why?" That question was asked. the answer has come back many many times. very few people are offended. A whole lot of people are not. and I'm not speaking of anyone but the Native population. every time the question is asked, this is how it goes. So when it comes down to "who is offended", and the answer is "A small fraction of the entire population who fall under the heading of the supposedly slurred", then the question of "how many" becomes quite relevant. the "why" becomes VERY relevant when the few continually ignore the many to push their agenda. Why does this small minority ignore the majority of their people? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.