Just in Atlanta Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 +1 -2 -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Much of this post is kind of embarrassing. The "racial/ethnic victim bandwagon" card, or whatever you're saying--- it's all dripping with irony. You tough guys are trying way too hard to be offended by those that simply acknowledge a basic truth. Don't recall trying to act the tough guy, but whatever. I am curious as to where the irony is and what basic truth is not being acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Don't recall trying to act the tough guy, but whatever. I am curious as to where the irony is and what basic truth is not being acknowledged. Those that disagree with you are "pussies"? I'd say that's a standard tough guy act. The part about you guys trying so hard to be offended by other poster's words and ideas--- that's ironic considering your position on the general PC police meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) I have two nieces who are half Native American, in their late 20s, both are very involved in their heritage, and both are big sports fans. One of them is completely offended by the nickname "Redskins" and has written several papers on the subject. The other is completely indifferent to it and thinks it means nothing. One can easily see just from that why this is a polarizing issue. I get that, and if your niece told me she was offended I'd be a little more receptive to her concerns than I am to the white uptight PC guy who feels some deep spiritual connection to "Native Americans" (I hate that term because it already meant something else) because he watched Sun Chaser and knows someone who's 1/16 American Indian that digs Indian lore and refers to them as "my people". Knowing several American Indians, some intimately as it were, many of whom like the name or are indifferent to it and none who have a strong opposition to it, I'm less inclined to entertain the gripes of those vicariously offended on their behalf. Plus, I'm kind of tired of the hypersensitivity of our culture generally. This is just another facet of it. Those that disagree with you are "pussies"? I'd say that's a standard tough guy act. The part about you guys trying so hard to be offended by other poster's words and ideas--- that's ironic considering your position on the general PC police meme. I generally find those who are easily offended to be pussies. That's not particular to people who have strong feelings about this particular subject. That's not to say I'm a tough guy; just not so easily offended. That's all. Also, I'm not offended by political correctness, I'm annoyed by it. There is a subtle difference. Edited January 13, 2013 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 It's just so simple. They even have the name registered already. This thread is embarrassing on many fronts. Or the thousands that protested them at the Super Bowl against us? It amazes me when someone comes out and argues "I I know a guy that's not offended so its perfectly ok" When it comes down to it - it's derogatory and any history or tradition a team needs to preserve isn't held in its nickname. I've studied this a little because of my niece. There are a lot of Native Americans who are not offended by it. In fact, there are a lot of Native Americans who are offended by the term "Native Americans." I read this great article by a famous Native American writer Sherman Alexie who basically said, "I'm an Indian. I call myself an Indian. All my friends call themselves Indians." My sister, the mother of the girls, is 100% white and she is more offended by "Redskins" than anyone I know. I have read that the majority of Native Americans dislike that moniker and prefer Indian or American Indian. If I were the final say, I would probably want the name Redskins changed. Because a certain, significant amount of people are offended by it, even though I am not, and I'm usually all about fairness and racial equality. We tend to overvalue majority opinion in this country sometimes. If something is up for an official vote, okay I will totally accept majority opinion as the final arbiter. But sometimes, if a minority is offended and a majority are not, it may be wisest to appease the minority, because the majority of the majority really don't care. The best piece of advice i ever got in my writing career came from a Producer who was trying to convince me to take out a controversial element of my story, I was pretty adamant that the story needed it, it was organic, and it was much better if that element, which was an incestual relationship, was kept. The producer agreed, but then said, "Your story is not about incest. No one is going to buy this or see it because of the incest, but there are a lot of people who are not going to buy it, and not going to see it, because of that." He was absolutely right. That may or may not be a good reason to change something, but it's true nonetheless. The minority was more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) I've studied this a little because of my niece. There are a lot of Native Americans who are not offended by it. In fact, there are a lot of Native Americans who are offended by the term "Native Americans." I read this great article by a famous Native American writer Sherman Alexie who basically said, "I'm an Indian. I call myself an Indian. All my friends call themselves Indians." My sister, the mother of the girls, is 100% white and she is more offended by "Redskins" than anyone I know. I have read that the majority of Native Americans dislike that moniker and prefer Indian or American Indian. If I were the final say, I would probably want the name Redskins changed. Because a certain, significant amount of people are offended by it, even though I am not, and I'm usually all about fairness and racial equality. We tend to overvalue majority opinion in this country sometimes. If something is up for an official vote, okay I will totally accept majority opinion as the final arbiter. But sometimes, if a minority is offended and a majority are not, it may be wisest to appease the minority, because the majority of the majority really don't care. The best piece of advice i ever got in my writing career came from a Producer who was trying to convince me to take out a controversial element of my story, I was pretty adamant that the story needed it, it was organic, and it was much better if that element, which was an incestual relationship, was kept. The producer agreed, but then said, "Your story is not about incest. No one is going to buy this or see it because of the incest, but there are a lot of people who are not going to buy it, and not going to see it, because of that." He was absolutely right. That may or may not be a good reason to change something, but it's true nonetheless. The minority was more important. Yup - thanks for taking the time to share more. In this case, I feel like the strongest supporters of keeping the name really have no horse in the race with regards to the term "redskin" and are raging against the great liberal machine that's stealing their rights.... This doesn't have to be about that. This can be so simple. The term redskin really kinda sucks, and a simple switch to something like warriors does nothing to hurt nearly anyone arguing to keep the name. Really no one loses by switching the name. That's why it's devolved into some slippery slope argument - because there's not a great reason to keep it at this point. Edited January 13, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I get that, and if your niece told me she was offended I'd be a little more receptive to her concerns than I am to the white uptight PC guy who feels some deep spiritual connection to "Native Americans" (I hate that term because it already meant something else) because he watched Sun Chaser and knows someone who's 1/16 American Indian that digs Indian lore and refers to them as "my people". This is a lot if rhetoric though, isn't it? I understand what you're saying to a degree, but I'm not sure it describes any posters in this thread. It is also a stereotype of a certain type of "hippie dippie" New Ager. I'm not sure it's fair to paint the opposing viewpoint with such broad strokes anymore than it would be for me to attempt to define you with a paranoid Fox News far right brush. I generally find those who are easily offended to be pussies. That's not particular to people who have strong feelings about this particular subject. That's not to say I'm a tough guy; just not so easily offended. That's all. Also, I'm not offended by political correctness, I'm annoyed by it. There is a subtle difference. I do understand. FWIW, I am also generally annoyed by PC correctness. There are posters in this thread that appear "threatened" by the very nature of the conversation, and not necessarily you, to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 This is a lot if rhetoric though, isn't it? I understand what you're saying to a degree, but I'm not sure it describes any posters in this thread. It is also a stereotype of a certain type of "hippie dippie" New Ager. I'm not sure it's fair to paint the opposing viewpoint with such broad strokes anymore than it would be for me to attempt to define you with a paranoid Fox News far right brush. Fair enough. My main point was just that the people I hear complain the most vehemently about this are white people. I don't mean to denigrate anyone for simply disagreeing with the name, it's the people that get really indignant about it that I find most annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voodoo poonani Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What about 49ers? Some of them used drugs and whores. If there was a team called the Polish Hussars, I'd take pride in that being Polish. I know Redskins isn't the greatest term, but isn't it meant to suggest the fierceness of a people? If it was meant as a derogatory term, why would you call your coaches/players that? It doesn't make sense that that is how it was intended to be perceived. I'd be more upset about people calling them Indians ( some real Indian people are) because Columbus thought he landed in the East Indies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What about 49ers? Some of them used drugs and whores. You do see the difference between "because the name is is derogatory towards a group of people" and "because not everyone that fits under the label is a saint," correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) I think Redskins came from the savage image of the Indians/Native Americans that existed in popular culture until just a few decades ago. It's dehumanizing. Edited January 13, 2013 by Pondslider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Take the Sologne "Circle The Wagons" its credited to Western Pioneers circling their wagons together to fight off attacking Indians, so shouldn't the Bills stop using it And I am not shouting down anyone, I am are just point out facts & so are others, nobody has to agree with each other but it be cool if we could be civil about it, I see other opinion, all I am saying "Where does it end" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 If there was a team called the Polish Hussars, I'd take pride in that being Polish. I know Redskins isn't the greatest term, but isn't it meant to suggest the fierceness of a people? If it was meant as a derogatory term, why would you call your coaches/players that? It doesn't make sense that that is how it was intended to be perceived. If its any context - the redskins original owner is one of the most racially insensitive in the history of the nfl. So I'd say its possible that he took the very "ppsssssh they should like it" kind of approach to the name that many here have - and then after awhile society got a bit more distant from the word as it isn't really in any common dialect outside of the context of the team name today. He refused to sign black players til the 60s when he was told he'd be kicked out of the stadium if he didnt as an example of his history in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think Redskins came from the savage image of the Indians/Native Americans that existed in popular culture until just a few decades ago. It's dehumanizing. What about Fighting Irish ? it can implies the people of Irish heritage get drunk & fight or like to fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Take the Sologne "Circle The Wagons" its credited to Western Pioneers circling their wagons together to fight off attacking Indians, so shouldn't the Bills stop using it And I am not shouting down anyone, I am are just point out facts & so are others, nobody has to agree with each other but it be cool if we could be civil about it, I see other opinion, all I am saying "Where does it end" "Circling the wagons" isn't offensive anymore than the word "blitz". Where to draw the line is really pretty obvious, isn't it? Implying that society will devolve into some form of martial law due to a "slippery slope" is an overreaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) Take the Sologne "Circle The Wagons" its credited to Western Pioneers circling their wagons together to fight off attacking Indians, so shouldn't the Bills stop using it And I am not shouting down anyone, I am are just point out facts & so are others, nobody has to agree with each other but it be cool if we could be civil about it, I see other opinion, all I am saying "Where does it end" Have the Bills ever used that as an official slogan? It doesn't matter anyway because its not a derogatory term. Edited January 13, 2013 by Pondslider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think Redskins came from the savage image of the Indians/Native Americans that existed in popular culture until just a few decades ago. It's dehumanizing. Dude, most of the Indian tribes that were here were pretty savage. That's just how it was. This Disney image we have of peaceloving agrarian saints being at one with the land ignores the brutal reality that existed. If you're arguing that it's unfair to the modern day decendents of those tribes (although most of us have some Indian blood in us) I suppose that's a fair argument, but the image isn't necessarily a false one when taken in an historical context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) Dude, most of the Indian tribes that were here were pretty savage. That's just how it was. This Disney image we have of peaceloving agrarian saints being at one with the land ignores the brutal reality that existed. If you're arguing that it's unfair to the modern day decendents of those tribes (although most of us have some Indian blood in us) I suppose that's a fair argument, but the image isn't necessarily a false one when taken in an historical context. They were no more savage than the Europeans. History is written by the winners and the Native Americans lost. P.S. This Disney image? Edited January 13, 2013 by Pondslider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 They were no more savage than the Europeans. History is written by the winners and the Native Americans lost. Like Christopher Columbus. One of the most savage in history. They should revoke Columbus day before changing the name of the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 "Circling the wagons" isn't offensive anymore than the word "blitz". Where to draw the line is really pretty obvious, isn't it? Implying that society will devolve into some form of martial law due to a "slippery slope" is an overreaction. it isn't obvious, take banning books from schools, it starts off with mein kampf & can end with Spongebob big adventure' its just how far do you want to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts