Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

[lakerstan]

After 9/11, I'm surprised that the NY Jets didn't change their name.

 

[Henry Ford]

If the Redskins name was so "disparaging" to Native Americans, why did it take the Patent Office 82 years to cancel the trademark registration? It wasn't disparaging enough 30 years ago? Or we just more thin-skinned now?

The trademark was issued in 1967. The first lawsuits were filed in 1992 and the trademark was deemed offensive in those cases in 1998 or 1999. The appellate court overturned the cancellation of the trademark based on the particular plaintiffs waiting too long to file, and the remaining requests for cancellation in front of the PTO were stayed while that case went through its appeals. That finished in 2009, and in 2010 the remaining cases were reinstated at the PTO, leading to this ruling.

The thing that strikes me is that it's taken 22 years for this to get to a non-procedural ruling. What the heck are they doing in the Patent Office?

In 1999 the PTO had the same ruling on a different case. The appeal ruling was procedural.

Ok, right, fine, but it was thus appealed on a procedural basis. And this will be appealed, and they will probably throw in both procedural and substantive arguments, and the TM/patent will stay in effect pending that appeal. And how long will that last?

My guess would be four to six years. Maybe less. Could probably get it done in two to three. It could actually get picked up by this Supreme Court. That'd mean some extra time.

 

[Henry Ford]

After 9/11, I'm surprised that the NY Jets didn't change their name.

And Jet Blue. And Elton John's song Benny and the Jets should be rerecorded. Totally the same thing.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins?

Buildings/property associated with those teams would burn.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

After 9/11, I'm surprised that the NY Jets didn't change their name.

And Jet Blue. And Elton John's song Benny and the Jets should be rerecorded. Totally the same thing.

I walked out of our local high school's production of West Side Story in disgust.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/offensive-here-are-some-registered-trademarks-still-good-standing-you-wont-believe

Other gubmint-approved offensive trademarks.

The worst invention ever has to be Twitter

So...no comment on the facts presented?

Facts presented!

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

Dude...calm your self-righteous self down. I didn't say they should or shouldn't be litigated against. The fact that Red an, ###### and Stinky Gringo are approved doesn't bother you? Or is this only about Redskins?

You're right. I should be more calm and reasonable, like the good people who write and read misleading information at truthrevolt.org.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins?

Buildings/property associated with those teams would burn.

The difference is of course that "Redskin" is (arguably) a historical pejorative.

People use skin color all the time completely senselessly but society accepts it, which is crazy.

 

[SWC]

it is about dignity brohans and that name takes the dignity of a whole people and stomps it in the mud i do not even think this is a close call you change the name say sorry and be a decent human but hey i guess for some folks being right is more important that being decent take that to the bank brohans

 

[avoiding injuries]

I say yes. Oh good, I feel so much better about myself for typing that.

 

[the moops]

The whole, "there are other trademarked disparaging names" shtick is a good one.

 

[Premier]

It's great seeing the hillbillies on Facebook/twitter freak out about this.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's great seeing the hillbillies on Facebook/twitter freak out about this.

Bad Redskins name arguments bingo!

 

[Don Quixote]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

 

[Henry Ford]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

That's going to push your school's rankings down.

 

[Doug B]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

Not sure if this is what you're intending to do or not ... but I don't think a singular hot-button issue like this should be used as an absolute litmus test of someone's character. Human beings are more complicated than that.

A lot of people who'd rather the Redskins keep the name are not out-and-out bigots, actively looking to deny economic and educational opportunities to minorities as a part of their life's mission. Instead, I think there's a lack of understand about just what "offense" means and why it matters. I feel like I, personally, have this exact issue - I understand situational personal offense, but I cannot understand the connection between "group offense" and "harm" (especially "economic harm"). I understand, academically, that "group offense" does not roll off people's backs, but I do not understand why it does not do so. I admit to not personally understanding the perceived harm.

That said, changing the Redskins name falls in the "can't hurt, might help" bucket for me. But make no mistake -- for Daniel Snyder and for a lot of people, the name change will be strictly business, and will not represent any actual sensitivity to whatver offense has been felt and articulated. If no one ever spoke up, or if a critical mass of protesters had never been reached, the Redskins name never gets changed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

Not sure if this is what you're intending to do or not ... but I don't think a singular hot-button issue like this should be used as an absolute litmus test of someone's character. Human beings are more complicated than that.

A lot of people who'd rather the Redskins keep the name are not out-and-out bigots, actively looking to deny economic and educational opportunities to minorities as a part of their life's mission. Instead, I think there's a lack of understand about just what "offense" means and why it matters. I feel like I, personally, have this exact issue - I understand situational personal offense, but I cannot understand the connection between "group offense" and "harm" (especially "economic harm"). I understand, academically, that "group offense" does not roll off people's backs, but I do not understand why it does not do so. I admit to not personally understanding the perceived harm.

That said, changing the Redskins name falls in the "can't hurt, might help" bucket for me. But make no mistake -- for Daniel Snyder and for a lot of people, the name change will be strictly business, and will not represent any actual sensitivity to whatver offense has been felt and articulated. If no one ever spoke up, or if a critical mass of protesters had never been reached, the Redskins name never gets changed.

I think the problem is more that a law school graduate who took administrative law thinks a PTO decision on a petition has anything whatsoever to do with Obama than anyone opposing the name change.

 

[Don Quixote]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

Not sure if this is what you're intending to do or not ... but I don't think a singular hot-button issue like this should be used as an absolute litmus test of someone's character. Human beings are more complicated than that.

A lot of people who'd rather the Redskins keep the name are not out-and-out bigots, actively looking to deny economic and educational opportunities to minorities as a part of their life's mission. Instead, I think there's a lack of understand about just what "offense" means and why it matters. I feel like I, personally, have this exact issue - I understand situational personal offense, but I cannot understand the connection between "group offense" and "harm" (especially "economic harm"). I understand, academically, that "group offense" does not roll off people's backs, but I do not understand why it does not do so. I admit to not personally understanding the perceived harm.

That said, changing the Redskins name falls in the "can't hurt, might help" bucket for me. But make no mistake -- for Daniel Snyder and for a lot of people, the name change will be strictly business, and will not represent any actual sensitivity to whatver offense has been felt and articulated. If no one ever spoke up, or if a critical mass of protesters had never been reached, the Redskins name never gets changed.

I think the problem is more that a law school graduate who took administrative law thinks a PTO decision on a petition has anything whatsoever to do with Obama than anyone opposing the name change.

That is correct. And that's without even getting into the fact that the judge who wrote the PTO decision was appointed by Bush.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

Not sure if this is what you're intending to do or not ... but I don't think a singular hot-button issue like this should be used as an absolute litmus test of someone's character. Human beings are more complicated than that.

A lot of people who'd rather the Redskins keep the name are not out-and-out bigots, actively looking to deny economic and educational opportunities to minorities as a part of their life's mission. Instead, I think there's a lack of understand about just what "offense" means and why it matters. I feel like I, personally, have this exact issue - I understand situational personal offense, but I cannot understand the connection between "group offense" and "harm" (especially "economic harm"). I understand, academically, that "group offense" does not roll off people's backs, but I do not understand why it does not do so. I admit to not personally understanding the perceived harm.

That said, changing the Redskins name falls in the "can't hurt, might help" bucket for me. But make no mistake -- for Daniel Snyder and for a lot of people, the name change will be strictly business, and will not represent any actual sensitivity to whatver offense has been felt and articulated. If no one ever spoke up, or if a critical mass of protesters had never been reached, the Redskins name never gets changed.

I don't think he's judging his classmate's character. He's judging his intelligence.

It's one thing for yahoos on both sides to have strong opinions about whether the name should be changed. Fine. It's another for someone who has been to law school to say something stupid like claiming that a decision from the TTAB (in a case that has been in the pipeline for years) is somehow a competing priority with the administration's foreign policy. It's just a really dumb comment.

There's only one debate to be had over this ruling. And that's whether the petitioners submitted sufficient evidence of disparagement or not. There's no debate that if the petitioners did submit sufficient evidence, the mark can be rescinded. That's right in the statute.

 

[Don Quixote]

Someone I went to law school with (a reasonably intelligent person) posted on Facebook blaming Obama and telling him he had bigger problems to deal with, like Iraq. I even took administrative law with this person.

That's going to push your school's rankings down.

We've already dropped about 25 places since I graduated. Tier 2, here we come.

 

[dparker713]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins? I understand it's been a very long time, but the name was created in an era where racism was more accepted. I do get some of the arguments, but I keep coming back to this.

I'll say that growing up I had no idea redskins was a pejorative. It was merely the name of a sports team to me and had no meaning outside of sports. That's probably partially because Native Americans are such a small minority group that my exposure to them was highly limited. For me, the language had changed and without the fight to change names/mascots I might never have even associated these things with actual Native Americans.

 

[Rove!]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins? I understand it's been a very long time, but the name was created in an era where racism was more accepted. I do get some of the arguments, but I keep coming back to this.

I'll say that growing up I had no idea redskins was a pejorative. It was merely the name of a sports team to me and had no meaning outside of sports. That's probably partially because Native Americans are such a small minority group that my exposure to them was highly limited. For me, the language had changed and without the fight to change names/mascots I might never have even associated these things with actual Native Americans.

I'm glad this movement has helped to alleviate your ignorance on this matter

 

[Rove!]

I feel like I, personally, have this exact issue - I understand situational personal offense, but I cannot understand the connection between "group offense" and "harm" (especially "economic harm").

for me, if one or a group of ignoramuses want to call me a pejorative based on my skin tone, spiritual beliefs, ethnic background etc, it's is personally hurtful. But when you turn it around and make that pejorative an acceptable part of the fabric of society, then it is harmful in that how can you fell fully accepted by a society that also makes this pejorative perfectly acceptable?

 

[MattFancy]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins? I understand it's been a very long time, but the name was created in an era where racism was more accepted. I do get some of the arguments, but I keep coming back to this.

I'll say that growing up I had no idea redskins was a pejorative. It was merely the name of a sports team to me and had no meaning outside of sports. That's probably partially because Native Americans are such a small minority group that my exposure to them was highly limited. For me, the language had changed and without the fight to change names/mascots I might never have even associated these things with actual Native Americans.

I'm sure that if you went through the streets and asked random people the first thing that comes to their mind when you say "Redskins", I'd guess a vast majority would say something related to the football team.

 

[The Commish]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins? I understand it's been a very long time, but the name was created in an era where racism was more accepted. I do get some of the arguments, but I keep coming back to this.

I'll say that growing up I had no idea redskins was a pejorative. It was merely the name of a sports team to me and had no meaning outside of sports. That's probably partially because Native Americans are such a small minority group that my exposure to them was highly limited. For me, the language had changed and without the fight to change names/mascots I might never have even associated these things with actual Native Americans.

I had the same experience growing up, only I had pretty significant exposure to Native Americans (Cherokee specifically). It wasn't an issue then. Because of the area, we had a good number who were Redskin fans. It was between them, Atlanta and Dallas. In this instance, the word's had varying meanings over the course of it's existence, which is why I find it's comparison to words like the N word laughable. When I hear that excuse, I put them in the same bin with the people suggesting that the Jaguars should change their name. Some pretty ridiculous logic on both sides of this IMO.

 

[Raider Nation]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[TheIronSheik]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

 

[TheIronSheik]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

 

[avoiding injuries]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians? "You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Prepare yourself for another condescending response.

 

[TheIronSheik]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians? "You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Prepare yourself for another condescending response.

I hear ya. I try to stay out of this thread because of it. I have two people in here who tell me how much they like me, then follow it up by saying I'm an idiot.

 

[dparker713]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

That's basically the Notre Dame mascot.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians? "You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Prepare yourself for another condescending response.

I hear ya. I try to stay out of this thread because of it. I have two people in here who tell me how much they like me, then follow it up by saying I'm an idiot.

What? Where did I say you're an idiot? Literally the most negative thing I posted about you here is being incredulous that you don't understand why caricatures of cultures/ethnicities are kind of offensive. You saying that my argument was ridiculous was far more condescending than anything I said (not that either was remotely condescending).

 

[dparker713]

I say yes. We wouldn't accept the Brownskins with a black man as the logo or the Yellowskins with an Asian man, so why accept the Redskins? I understand it's been a very long time, but the name was created in an era where racism was more accepted. I do get some of the arguments, but I keep coming back to this.

I'll say that growing up I had no idea redskins was a pejorative. It was merely the name of a sports team to me and had no meaning outside of sports. That's probably partially because Native Americans are such a small minority group that my exposure to them was highly limited. For me, the language had changed and without the fight to change names/mascots I might never have even associated these things with actual Native Americans.

I'm glad this movement has helped to alleviate your ignorance on this matter

Language changes in part due to ignorance of the past usage. Alleviating my, and other's, ignorance on the matter may not have advanced the cause of Native American rights and equality.

 

[TheIronSheik]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.

Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.

Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

1. I fully admit that the comments are racist. I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable treating them ... well frankly, the way the team treats Native Americans.

2. I never said the bolded. I said that Skins brass formerly argued that they chose the name out of respect to honor a coach. That was refuted. It was a name chosen to avoid confusion with a baseball team, end of story.

3. The name "Redskins" has never been used by non-Native Americans to describe Native Americans in a "prideful" manner. Never ever. It's used in a prideful manner in reference to the football team (before they started to suck regularly), but that's because the word isn't used often in other contexts so people primarily associated it with the football team and didn't stop to think about what it meant. I've never heard a word referring to another minority by a exaggerated physical description in a "prideful" way. I can think of dozens of examples where it's the opposite. There's no evidence that this is some magical exception to that rule.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why we’re banning Redskins in The Seattle Times

Posted by Don Shelton

The most controversial name in sports won’t appear again in The Seattle Times’ print edition or on the seattletimes.com home pages as long as I am sports editor.

It’s time to ban the use of “Redskins,” the absurd, offensive and outdated name of the NFL team in Washington, D.C.

Past time, actually.

We’ll probably receive scathing emails, letters, phone calls and reader comments telling me we’re too PC, that the name actually honors Native Americans or that we have no right to change a team’s official name.

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion – even if I don’t buy it.

We’re banning the name for one reason: It’s offensive. Far from honoring Native Americans, the term colors an entire race. Many Native Americans consider it an outdated label placed on their people.

What Snyder wants is going to get run over by what Goodell and the rest of the NFL want sooner rather than later. Won't take too many more NFL-city papers adopting the same posture either.

 

[The Commish]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.

Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

History of the word doesn't mean much here. I went down that path early on. It leads nowhere.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.

Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

History of the word doesn't mean much here. I went down that path early on. It leads nowhere.

Well sure, because it's a terrible, terrible argument. The meaning of words changes over time. That's not exactly an earth-shattering point.

But here even history isn't on the side of those defending the name. It's been used to caricature Indians as savages for as long as anyone can remember.

 

[Don Quixote]

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

You may be saying that on an objective basis, but, subjectively anyway, some Native Americans would find that offensive. As a recent example, Pharrell recently came under fire after wearing an Indian headdress in a photo shoot and had to apologize. It's a symbol, similar to medals of honor, and some view it as disrespectful to wear it.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

That's basically the Notre Dame mascot.

The Notre Dame mascot is a leprechaun. A fictional creature no different than a Giant.

A better comparison for your use would be the Mountaineer.

 

[The Commish]

Well sure, because it's a terrible, terrible argument. The meaning of words changes over time. That's not exactly an earth-shattering point.

But here even history isn't on the side of those defending the name. It's been used to caricature Indians as savages for as long as anyone can remember.

Goddard and history of the French language disagree with you. I won't go as far as to say it was "prideful", but it certainly wasn't derogatory or originated in the scalping of Indians. It was a term frequently used and well documented well before being associated with those events.

ETA: Which is what I was alluding to before. When someone compares this term to a term that has NEVER been neutral/positive, it reeks of disingenuous. That's all TIS is saying and what I said many many pages ago.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why we’re banning Redskins in The Seattle Times

Posted by Don Shelton

The most controversial name in sports won’t appear again in The Seattle Times’ print edition or on the seattletimes.com home pages as long as I am sports editor.

It’s time to ban the use of “Redskins,” the absurd, offensive and outdated name of the NFL team in Washington, D.C.

Past time, actually.

We’ll probably receive scathing emails, letters, phone calls and reader comments telling me we’re too PC, that the name actually honors Native Americans or that we have no right to change a team’s official name.

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion – even if I don’t buy it.

We’re banning the name for one reason: It’s offensive. Far from honoring Native Americans, the term colors an entire race. Many Native Americans consider it an outdated label placed on their people.

What Snyder wants is going to get run over by what Goodell and the rest of the NFL want sooner rather than later. Won't take too many more NFL-city papers adopting the same posture either.

This stuff changes things a little, but I think pressure from sponsors is gonna exert far more pressure. There's already a shareholder challenge to FedEx filed today- sponsored by the Oneida folks but co-signed by some investment firms. link

 

[squistion]

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Not asinine to some Native Americans such as this writer for the Native Appropriations website, talking about wearing an Indian headdress:

http://nativeappropriations.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-a-hipster-headdress.html

But Why Can’t I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

I’ve posted a lot about the phenomenon that is the hipster headdress (see here, here, and here), but I’ve never really broken it down as to why this trend is so annoying and effed up. A lot of this will be review and is repeated elsewhere on the site, but I thought it was high time I pulled things together into a one-stop-anti-headdress shop. Much of this can also apply to any of the “tribal trends” I feature here, and you can also consider this a follow up to my “Cultural Appropriation Bingo” post. The many sources I drew from are included at the end of this post.


So why can’t I wear it?

• Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
• The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.
• Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
• The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.
  
• It’s just like wearing blackface.
• “Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.
  

• There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
• By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.
  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well sure, because it's a terrible, terrible argument. The meaning of words changes over time. That's not exactly an earth-shattering point.

But here even history isn't on the side of those defending the name. It's been used to caricature Indians as savages for as long as anyone can remember.

Goddard and history of the French language disagree with you. I won't go as far as to say it was "prideful", but it certainly wasn't derogatory and originated in the scalping of Indians. It was a term frequently used and well documented well before being associated with those events.

I did a quick google search and found that this Goddard fellow "stated clearly that only current feelings about the word were relevant to determining whether redskin is offensive today." Same article says "Nonetheless, it is easy to see from 19th-century newspapers that the term did frequently appear in the context of violence by and against Indians. Stories about life-or-death encounters with hostile tribes can be found by searching redskin in Chronicling America, the National Digital Newspaper Database."

link

I guess people can remember back before the 19th century, so maybe "as long as anyone can remember" wasn't right, but it doesn't really matter. That's what it's meant for a long long time (again, not that it matters).

 

[TheIronSheik]

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Not asinine to some Native Americans such as this writer for the Native Appropriations website, talking about wearing an Indian headdress:

http://nativeappropriations.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-a-hipster-headdress.html

But Why Can’t I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

I’ve posted a lot about the phenomenon that is the hipster headdress (see here, here, and here), but I’ve never really broken it down as to why this trend is so annoying and effed up. A lot of this will be review and is repeated elsewhere on the site, but I thought it was high time I pulled things together into a one-stop-anti-headdress shop. Much of this can also apply to any of the “tribal trends” I feature here, and you can also consider this a follow up to my “Cultural Appropriation Bingo” post. The many sources I drew from are included at the end of this post.


So why can’t I wear it?

• Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
• The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.
• Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
• The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.
  
• It’s just like wearing blackface.
• “Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.
  

• There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
• By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.
  

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

 

[The Commish]

Well sure, because it's a terrible, terrible argument. The meaning of words changes over time. That's not exactly an earth-shattering point.

But here even history isn't on the side of those defending the name. It's been used to caricature Indians as savages for as long as anyone can remember.

Goddard and history of the French language disagree with you. I won't go as far as to say it was "prideful", but it certainly wasn't derogatory and originated in the scalping of Indians. It was a term frequently used and well documented well before being associated with those events.

I did a quick google search and found that this Goddard fellow "stated clearly that only current feelings about the word were relevant to determining whether redskin is offensive today." Same article says "Nonetheless, it is easy to see from 19th-century newspapers that the term did frequently appear in the context of violence by and against Indians. Stories about life-or-death encounters with hostile tribes can be found by searching redskin in Chronicling America, the National Digital Newspaper Database."

link

I guess people can remember back before the 19th century, so maybe "as long as anyone can remember" wasn't right, but it doesn't really matter. That's what it's meant for a long long time (again, not that it matters).

I get what a lot of folks today associate it with. That wasn't the point. I was simply pointing out how comparing this word and it's history, with say the N word and it's history is disingenuous. It's a big difference that is minimized by some for whatever reason

 

[dparker713]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

That's basically the Notre Dame mascot.

The Notre Dame mascot is a leprechaun. A fictional creature no different than a Giant.

A better comparison for your use would be the Mountaineer.

He's a fighting Irishman; fighting because he's a drunk.

 

[squistion]

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Not asinine to some Native Americans such as this writer for the Native Appropriations website, talking about wearing an Indian headdress:

http://nativeappropriations.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-a-hipster-headdress.html

But Why Can’t I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

I’ve posted a lot about the phenomenon that is the hipster headdress (see here, here, and here), but I’ve never really broken it down as to why this trend is so annoying and effed up. A lot of this will be review and is repeated elsewhere on the site, but I thought it was high time I pulled things together into a one-stop-anti-headdress shop. Much of this can also apply to any of the “tribal trends” I feature here, and you can also consider this a follow up to my “Cultural Appropriation Bingo” post. The many sources I drew from are included at the end of this post.


So why can’t I wear it?

• Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
• The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.
• Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
• The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.
  
• It’s just like wearing blackface.
• “Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.
  

• There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
• By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.
  

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

It is too when it directly refutes what you said:

Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

 

[Doug B]

But when you turn it around and make that pejorative an acceptable part of the fabric of society, then it is harmful in that how can you fell fully accepted by a society that also makes this pejorative perfectly acceptable?

Your point is taken. I guess I was thinking that once a minority group is afforded codified legal protections, and once economic and educational barriers are at least legally removed, then overt societal acceptance would merely desirable, but not particulalrly important -- "Sure ... disrespect me all you want. Hate me, even. I have the RIGHT to love/work/be here and I plan to exercise it!"

But then, living life as a perpetual object lesson for bigots must get old quick. So ... if society doesn't care to enforce societal sanctions against offense, then the legal protections don't mean as much, correct?