Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (1 Viewer)

[TheIronSheik]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

What's that matter? If Indians are offended, that's all that matters.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

We are still fans of the sport and the league. It doesnt personally affect my enjoyment but it might affect a lot of football fans.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me at all. Sorry. Not criticizing, just don't understand it. People care about all kinds of things I guess.

Love the shtick that only you can care.

 

[Hang 10]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

What's that matter? If Indians are offended, that's all that matters.

Exactly. And so what if it's only 2 of them that we know about. It's only a name.

 

[Doug B]

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

This is readily explained: because sometimes it looks like an entity is using feigned aggrievement as a way to gain clout. Might not be happening with the Redskins situation ... but sometimes in other situations it looks like the aggrieved party is acting like an old John Lovits bit on SNL -- "Oh yeah, yeah, I'm offended, yeah .... that's the ticket". In today's world, for better or worse, claiming offense can have real-world power. And once a critical mass is achieved, it's not like the legitimacy of the offense can be questioned in public fora.

Anyway, some people see that going on and it can be confusing because legit cases look a lot like the naked power grabs. That's one place where animus can come from.

Explicating, not advocating/

 

[Chaka]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

I didn't know that you had to be a fan of a team to care whether or not they are being racist.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

Clearly it doesn't matter if it's disparaging or not.

I don't think you and I use the word "clearly" to mean the same thing.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

What's that matter? If Indians are offended, that's all that matters.

No, the law is what matters. At least in terms of getting a trademark cancelled.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Why are you calling them indians?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

I didn't know that you had to be a fan of a team to care whether or not they are being racist.

Sorry, let me clarify. There's three types of people I can see having a vested interest: People who like the team and the name (eg Hang 10), people who like the team and hate the name( eg me) and Native Americans and those sympathetic to their plight. All of these make sense to me. The perspective I don't understand are people who are passionately defending the name even though they're not fans of the team. Why do they care? What stake do they have?

 

[TheIronSheik]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

What's that matter? If Indians are offended, that's all that matters.

No, the law is what matters. At least in terms of getting a trademark cancelled.

What are you talking about? For 42 pages of this thread, the point has been that Indians are offended and the name must be changed. You're acting like some relative to an Indian Giver the way you change your argument.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

I didn't know that you had to be a fan of a team to care whether or not they are being racist.

Sorry, let me clarify. There's three types of people I can see having a vested interest: People who like the team and the name (eg Hang 10), people who like the team and hate the name( eg me) and Native Americans and those sympathetic to their plight. All of these make sense to me. The perspective I don't understand are people who are passionately defending the name even though they're not fans of the team. Why do they care? What stake do they have?

 

[Henry Ford]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

What's that matter? If Indians are offended, that's all that matters.

No, the law is what matters. At least in terms of getting a trademark cancelled.

What are you talking about? For 42 pages of this thread, the point has been that Indians are offended and the name must be changed. You're acting like some relative to an Indian Giver the way you change your argument.

Well, it's not really a slippery slope in that regard. Native Americans have been protesting the Chiefs' name for a really long time. This isn't new.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

 

[trogg78]

Roger needs to just change the name and force Snyder to sell the team to magic Johnson.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

May the spirit of Chief Noc-a-Homa forever haunt this thread.

 

[Hang 10]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

:slowclap:

 

[Doug B]

The perspective I don't understand are people who are passionately defending the name even though they're not fans of the team. Why do they care? What stake do they have?

You've heard the expression "It's the principle of the thing!"

Also, see post # 2170.

 

[Chaka]

the point has been that Indians are offended and the name must be changed.

I agree.

 

[Chaka]

Why are you calling them indians?

The Louis CK thread is two doors down on the left.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

More people are upset about gay marriage being illegal now than they were 20 years ago. Or calling a gay person a #####. Does that mean we're going the wrong way?

 

[Doug B]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

While this may be true, the national media needs to account for where they were, say, back when the Gibbs/Theisman/Riggins Redskins were one of the NFL's glamour teams. These picketers got nary a camera upo them nor an inch of column in print.

At least Ian Allan (founder of Fantasy Football Index), by comparison, has carried the banner since he went public. FFI has not used the Redskins name since its founding in 1987. Only beat the Seattle Times by 27 years or so.

 

[avoiding injuries]

the point has been that Indians are offended and the name must be changed.

I agree.

1 out of 10. Where is the threshold, 1/100...1/1000? Maybe someone should set the parameters now so there isn't any confusion moving forward.

 

[Chaka]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

Love ya Shiek but I am calling major B.S. on that. I would buy it if the only meaning you knew for that word had to do with pushing a leather ball over a stripe but hearing it and thinking with pride upon our early American history? If that is honestly the case then all of your history professors need to be lined up and punched in the ovaries.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

While this may be true, the national media needs to account for where they were, say, back when the Gibbs/Theisman/Riggins Redskins were one of the NFL's glamour teams. These picketers got nary a camera upo them nor an inch of column in print.

At least Ian Allan (founder of Fantasy Football Index), by comparison, has carried the banner since he went public. FFI has not used the Redskins name since its founding in 1987. Only beat the Seattle Times by 27 years or so.

White people didn't care. Which means the media didn't care.

Hell, in 1980 the good people of Pekin, Illinois protested changing their high school mascot to "The Dragons." It was so crazy to have to change their mascot from the traditional one that no one was offended by. I mean, they named the team after those people, how could they be offended by such a silly thing as the Pekin Chinks?

 

[Chaka]

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

This is readily explained: because sometimes it looks like an entity is using feigned aggrievement as a way to gain clout. Might not be happening with the Redskins situation ... but sometimes in other situations it looks like the aggrieved party is acting like an old John Lovits bit on SNL -- "Oh yeah, yeah, I'm offended, yeah .... that's the ticket". In today's world, for better or worse, claiming offense can have real-world power. And once a critical mass is achieved, it's not like the legitimacy of the offense can be questioned in public fora.

Anyway, some people see that going on and it can be confusing because legit cases look a lot like the naked power grabs. That's one place where animus can come from.

Explicating, not advocating/

I agree with much of that premise but if the Native Americans are not truly offended then what is their end game?

To slowly gain power and seize back their native lands?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.

I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.

And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.

But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

More people are upset about gay marriage being illegal now than they were 20 years ago. Or calling a gay person a #####. Does that mean we're going the wrong way?

You're not comparing the same things. This is every person's defense when it comes to this. Compare it to (gay) or the N word. They are not even close.

Progress to allowing gays to marry is just that. Progress. The words you are comparing have always been offensive. 20 years ago, which of those three words would people consider offensive?

 

[Parrothead]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

then how about we just let the fans of the team vote and end this drama once and for all?

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

More people are upset about gay marriage being illegal now than they were 20 years ago. Or calling a gay person a #####. Does that mean we're going the wrong way?

You're not comparing the same things. This is every person's defense when it comes to this. Compare it to ###### (gay) or the N word. They are not even close.

Progress to allowing gays to marry is just that. Progress. The words you are comparing have always been offensive. 20 years ago, which of those three words would people consider offensive?

Why is "queer" the same as the N word? It just means different, right? It can be used in regular speech as something that's not offensive. It even began as a non-pejorative that just means "different."

 

[roadkill1292]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

Truthfully, I really like sticking it to Washington fans.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.

I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.

And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.

But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.

I never said it was the same as the cowboys. My point for that argument was that people are saying dressing up in a uniform is offensive. My point was that people dress up in other uniforms and it is NOT offensive. I used the Cowboys and a make believe team of the Knights as examples. People took it as I was comparing Cowboys to Redskins and ran with it, as usual. Which is pretty much why I try and stay out of here.

You keep saying it's an offensive caricature we use for Indians, but that's BS too. Almost every mascot is a caricature. That does not make it offensive.

 

[pollardsvision]

I'd be fine with the Braves changing names.

The whole look is pretty boring anyway, and for a team with some history, it doesn't have that classic feel either. Worst of both worlds.

I could get pretty excited about a new name, new look, and no chop.

About the whole issue in general, I'm absolutely fine with erring on the side of "too PC" or "too sensitive" here.

These are Native Americans we are talking about here. Whitey murdered, raped, pillaged, and stole the country. There won't be reparations. Nothing will undo the horrible #### done to their ancestors, the utter annihilation of a way of life, and the horrible long-lasting effects.

So, if a couple of sports teams' fan bases have to deal with a name change because a very small number of people find it offensive, so be it. I'm not going to debate how many need to be offended.

When I find myself starting to worry if enough people are offended, I just remind myself that there would be more Native Americans to be offended if most of their ancestors weren't murdered.

Just change the damn names and move on.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.

I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.

And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.

But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.

I never said it was the same as the cowboys. My point for that argument was that people are saying dressing up in a uniform is offensive. My point was that people dress up in other uniforms and it is NOT offensive. I used the Cowboys and a make believe team of the Knights as examples. People took it as I was comparing Cowboys to Redskins and ran with it, as usual. Which is pretty much why I try and stay out of here.

You keep saying it's an offensive caricature we use for Indians, but that's BS too. Almost every mascot is a caricature. That does not make it offensive.

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

More people are upset about gay marriage being illegal now than they were 20 years ago. Or calling a gay person a #####. Does that mean we're going the wrong way?

You're not comparing the same things. This is every person's defense when it comes to this. Compare it to ###### (gay) or the N word. They are not even close.

Progress to allowing gays to marry is just that. Progress. The words you are comparing have always been offensive. 20 years ago, which of those three words would people consider offensive?

Why is "queer" the same as the N word? It just means different, right? It can be used in regular speech as something that's not offensive. It even began as a non-pejorative that just means "different."

Again, you're not arguing against the point I made. The words you are comparing them to have been considered offensive since the day they were used that way. Redskins went hundreds of years without being a racial slur. You want to test my theory? Ask a 10 year old what Redskins mean? If they say something other than "an Indian" or "a football team", I'd be surprised. Just as surprised as they will be when you inform them that that word is now offensive.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.

I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.

And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.

But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.

I never said it was the same as the cowboys. My point for that argument was that people are saying dressing up in a uniform is offensive. My point was that people dress up in other uniforms and it is NOT offensive. I used the Cowboys and a make believe team of the Knights as examples. People took it as I was comparing Cowboys to Redskins and ran with it, as usual. Which is pretty much why I try and stay out of here.

You keep saying it's an offensive caricature we use for Indians, but that's BS too. Almost every mascot is a caricature. That does not make it offensive.

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.

I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.

And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.

But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.

I never said it was the same as the cowboys. My point for that argument was that people are saying dressing up in a uniform is offensive. My point was that people dress up in other uniforms and it is NOT offensive. I used the Cowboys and a make believe team of the Knights as examples. People took it as I was comparing Cowboys to Redskins and ran with it, as usual. Which is pretty much why I try and stay out of here.

You keep saying it's an offensive caricature we use for Indians, but that's BS too. Almost every mascot is a caricature. That does not make it offensive.

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

And even more so if you do it because you're playing to the stereotype of them as unenlightened savages.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

This is the first thing you've posted in here that's been sensible in a while. Hard to believe it came from the same guy who made silly analogies to "Cowboys" and awful slippery slope arguments.

I disagree, of course- I consider the movement progress and awareness, not regression. The problem isn't the word in a vacuum, but the notion of treating a race of people as a caricature of sub-human savages, a concern exacerbated by the way they've been treated historically by those in power. Those problems don't apply to nicknames like Yankees or Fighting Irish. There is no way that 40 years from now Native Americans would look back on the Redskins name with a sense of pride.

And I don't think you're right that it had lost all of its negative connotation. It had been muted because many of the things that the team used to do were so obviously offensive that they were phased out (the almost-naked mascot dancing around and hooting and hollering, the use of "scalping" in the song, other savage type imagery). But it was still negative. At least as I see it. I also think it's kind of paternalistic for a bunch of white people to tell Native Americans that if they just stop complaining for 40 years everything will be OK. Again, especially considering the history.

But hey, those are reasonable disagreements. Arguing that it's the same as Cowboys, not so much.

I never said it was the same as the cowboys. My point for that argument was that people are saying dressing up in a uniform is offensive. My point was that people dress up in other uniforms and it is NOT offensive. I used the Cowboys and a make believe team of the Knights as examples. People took it as I was comparing Cowboys to Redskins and ran with it, as usual. Which is pretty much why I try and stay out of here.

You keep saying it's an offensive caricature we use for Indians, but that's BS too. Almost every mascot is a caricature. That does not make it offensive.

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

 

[matttyl]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

I didn't know that you had to be a fan of a team to care whether or not they are being racist.

Sorry, let me clarify. There's three types of people I can see having a vested interest: People who like the team and the name (eg Hang 10), people who like the team and hate the name( eg me) and Native Americans and those sympathetic to their plight. All of these make sense to me. The perspective I don't understand are people who are passionately defending the name even though they're not fans of the team. Why do they care? What stake do they have?

Maybe they are Chiefs fans....or Braves fans, or Indians fans....

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

I didn't know that you had to be a fan of a team to care whether or not they are being racist.

Sorry, let me clarify. There's three types of people I can see having a vested interest: People who like the team and the name (eg Hang 10), people who like the team and hate the name( eg me) and Native Americans and those sympathetic to their plight. All of these make sense to me. The perspective I don't understand are people who are passionately defending the name even though they're not fans of the team. Why do they care? What stake do they have?

Maybe they are Chiefs fans....or Braves fans, or Indians fans....

That actually makes some sense

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I don't understand why people are suddenly shocked about this. There have been Native Americans actually picketing Chiefs, Braves, Indians, and Redskins for decades.

Yes. And for years the picketing was looked upon as ridiculous. A few people upset with a team's nickname. People who were not offended 10 years ago, now are outraged and call other people racists for not being as upset as they now are.

Here's the biggest takeaway: If more people are upset now than they were 20 years ago, we are going the wrong way. That means that we are teaching people that words that didn't use to have any negative meaning, now should be considered offensive. 20 years ago, people who cheered on the Redskins had no idea that it was offensive to a few people. But now, thousands of people now know a new offensive word. Is this progress? The word had lost almost ALL of it's negative connotation. But luckily, a few people who wouldn't let it die ensured that a whole new generation of people would now know that a word is offensive.

Brilliant. In 40 years, maybe Indians would have looked back upon the Redskins the same way people look at the name the Yankees or the Fighting Irish. They could have used it as a way to remember their past and take pride in their heritage. But instead they chose to not let it die. Who's fault is that? It's not mine, I'll tell you that. Never in my life have I ever said Redskins and meant it as offensive. In fact, up until a few years ago, the only meaning I knew of for Redskins was one of great pride in our early American history. And now that's gone. Again. Who's fault is that?

More people are upset about gay marriage being illegal now than they were 20 years ago. Or calling a gay person a #####. Does that mean we're going the wrong way?

You're not comparing the same things. This is every person's defense when it comes to this. Compare it to ###### (gay) or the N word. They are not even close.

Progress to allowing gays to marry is just that. Progress. The words you are comparing have always been offensive. 20 years ago, which of those three words would people consider offensive?

Why is "queer" the same as the N word? It just means different, right? It can be used in regular speech as something that's not offensive. It even began as a non-pejorative that just means "different."

Again, you're not arguing against the point I made. The words you are comparing them to have been considered offensive since the day they were used that way. Redskins went hundreds of years without being a racial slur. You want to test my theory? Ask a 10 year old what Redskins mean? If they say something other than "an Indian" or "a football team", I'd be surprised. Just as surprised as they will be when you inform them that that word is now offensive.

Ask a 10 year old what "queer" means and he's probably going to wonder what the hell you're talking about.

The word "queer" goes back at least 500 years, and originally mean "eccentric." First time it was meant as "homosexual" that there's any evidence of didn't come for 400 years.

 

[Doug B]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

 

[Henry Ford]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

When you root for a team that uses a race of people as a mascot, you dehumanize them in some of their eyes.

And treating people as monolithic entities is wrong, yes. I agree. I apologize for suggesting that white people should all be lumped together.

From the perspective of some Native American people, they are being severely disrespected by a country that has done a whole lot to them.

 

[drummer]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

When you root for a team that uses a race of people as a mascot, you dehumanize them in some of their eyes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Sourdough_Sam_Aliamanu_Military_Reservation_February_4,_2009.jpg

 

[Henry Ford]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

When you root for a team that uses a race of people as a mascot, you dehumanize them in some of their eyes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Sourdough_Sam_Aliamanu_Military_Reservation_February_4,_2009.jpg

When did "49ers" become a race?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Chief Slap A Ho is offensive ?

 

[Parrothead]

Chief Slap A Ho is offensive ?

to a ho

 

[drummer]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

When you root for a team that uses a race of people as a mascot, you dehumanize them in some of their eyes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Sourdough_Sam_Aliamanu_Military_Reservation_February_4,_2009.jpg

When did "49ers" become a race?

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a60/OrovilleTim/FL000016.jpg

 

[Henry Ford]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

When you root for a team that uses a race of people as a mascot, you dehumanize them in some of their eyes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Sourdough_Sam_Aliamanu_Military_Reservation_February_4,_2009.jpg

When did "49ers" become a race?

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a60/OrovilleTim/FL000016.jpg

Right. Do you think the gold rush was only white people?

 

[drummer]

When you turn a race of people you subjugated and stole generations from into a mascot for your sports team, some people find that offensive.

I don't remember doing either of those things to the Indians.

I don't remember anyone asking you to do anything to a mascot.

Sheik's point is better than you're giving him credit for. There is no longer a you in "... you turn a race of people ..." Treating people as monolithic entities is wrong in either direction.

When you root for a team that uses a race of people as a mascot, you dehumanize them in some of their eyes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Sourdough_Sam_Aliamanu_Military_Reservation_February_4,_2009.jpg

When did "49ers" become a race?

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a60/OrovilleTim/FL000016.jpg

Right. Do you think the gold rush was only white people?

More proof that lawyers really don't have a sense of humor.