Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.

[Numark3]

native Americans were upset about this and met with the team in 1972.  Stop saying this is a manifestation of white people from the past couple of years.  It has been a controversy for almost 50 years

[jkx2]

On 7/3/2020 at 8:57 AM, SectionC3 said:

I think Red Tails would be really cool.  Snyder trademarked "Bravehearts" a couple of years ago, though, so that's my bet. 

Not sure this was posted. But here's the mockup of the Redtails someone did

https://www.facebook.com/groups/955307551490179/permalink/1175350259485906/

[BarleyNY]

11 hours ago, Rob's House said:

I imagine it's been mentioned, but WaPo did a survey a few years ago and found that ~ 90% of actual Indians didn't find the name offensive and a lot of them think it's cool.

 

This contrived controversy isn't for the benefit of oppressed or marginalized communities, it's for self-righteous white people who want to advertise their wokeness and feel good about themselves.

Seems like that was a pretty bad survey for a lot of reasons.  It’s telling that WaPo won’t release it’s raw data or other important information about the poll.  Here is a follow up survey that got very different results.  

[Rob's House]

20 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Seems like that was a pretty bad survey for a lot of reasons.  It’s telling that WaPo won’t release it’s raw data or other important information about the poll.  Here is a follow up survey that got very different results.  

They say they're transparent about their methodology then hide it behind a paywall. ???.

 

What a pile of *****.

[aceman_16]

4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

They say they're transparent about their methodology then hide it behind a paywall. ???.

 

What a pile of *****.

Stop being lazy. Read the article and click on a link. Just to be transparent the link was embedded in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "... a new study from academics at the University of Michigan and UC Berkeley contradicts [the] data."

 

You will have the ENTIRE survey as well as the 31-page scholarly report that is associated with it. And well... for those who still are too bothered to check it out - it says Native Americans are offended....a BIG percentage of them.

[BarleyNY]

13 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

They say they're transparent about their methodology then hide it behind a paywall. ???.

 

What a pile of *****.

I don’t have a sub and I could read it

[jkx2]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

Wokeness is not about understanding the experience of others and showing consideration for them. It is about dehumanizing people by identifying them as members of groups, ranking them accordingly, and aggressively seeking out an enemy to destroy. When there is no enemy one must be invented.

 

The Redskins name isn't a primary target. It's a secondary target, but it's worth asking why it's a target at all. American Indians weren't upset about it. It wasn't hurting, offending, or oppressing anyone. Then one day the woke police unilaterally decided on behalf of a perceived victim group that this thing is now offensive.

 

It doesn't matter that there was no ill intent behind it, that they can't agree on the explanation for why it's supposedly offensive, or what it means to the fans, it only matters what it means to the offended. And "the offended" are the woke.

 

Strangely, that standard only applies to the targets of the woke. When the shoe is on the other foot we have a different standard. Say, for example, millions of people are offended by kneeling for the anthem as a show of disrespect to the flag. It no longer matters how it's perceived by the offended, but only what the woke claim it really means. It's pretty convenient.

 

These people claim to oppose racism, yet rank people according to race. They claim to oppose hate, yet preach wholesale condemnation of all who oppose them. They claim to value tolerance but seek the destruction of all who challenge their faith based ideology. These are not good people. They are who they purport to hate.

 

They've set race relations back decades in the name of "progress." Over a decade ago a majority of people, both black and white, thought race relations in America were good. That is no longer the case. The reason isn't because white people suddenly became more racist, but because there are people actively stirring the pot for the purpose of causing problems, and the woke are the ones buying the propaganda and spreading the message. They do nothing but spread racism and hatred.

 

You sound so white you must be an albino.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

Wokeness is not about understanding the experience of others and showing consideration for them. It is about dehumanizing people by identifying them as members of groups, ranking them accordingly, and aggressively seeking out an enemy to destroy. When there is no enemy one must be invented.(....)

They've set race relations back decades in the name of "progress." Over a decade ago a majority of people, both black and white, thought race relations in America were good.

 

I dunno about that "over a decade ago a majority of black people thought race relations in America were good"

I suspect that came from a survey with an agenda and suspect methodology.  I notice you don't include sources or links when you make such statements

But it's not like I'll stick around to debate - just a note that refraining from debate does not equate to inability to debate, or to agreement:

 

19 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

They say they're transparent about their methodology then hide it behind a paywall. ???.

 

What a pile of *****.

 

I was able to click on the link and read the article without any difficulty

[jkx2]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

Wokeness is not about understanding the experience of others and showing consideration for them. It is about dehumanizing people by identifying them as members of groups, ranking them accordingly, and aggressively seeking out an enemy to destroy. When there is no enemy one must be invented.

 

The Redskins name isn't a primary target. It's a secondary target, but it's worth asking why it's a target at all. American Indians weren't upset about it. It wasn't hurting, offending, or oppressing anyone. Then one day the woke police unilaterally decided on behalf of a perceived victim group that this thing is now offensive.

 

It doesn't matter that there was no ill intent behind it, that they can't agree on the explanation for why it's supposedly offensive, or what it means to the fans, it only matters what it means to the offended. And "the offended" are the woke.

 

Strangely, that standard only applies to the targets of the woke. When the shoe is on the other foot we have a different standard. Say, for example, millions of people are offended by kneeling for the anthem as a show of disrespect to the flag. It no longer matters how it's perceived by the offended, but only what the woke claim it really means. It's pretty convenient.

 

These people claim to oppose racism, yet rank people according to race. They claim to oppose hate, yet preach wholesale condemnation of all who oppose them. They claim to value tolerance but seek the destruction of all who challenge their faith based ideology. These are not good people. They are who they purport to hate.

 

They've set race relations back decades in the name of "progress." Over a decade ago a majority of people, both black and white, thought race relations in America were good. That is no longer the case. The reason isn't because white people suddenly became more racist, but because there are people actively stirring the pot for the purpose of causing problems, and the woke are the ones buying the propaganda and spreading the message. They do nothing but spread racism and hatred.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2020/jan/21/how-the-word-woke-was-weaponised-by-the-right

[Jauronimo]

On 7/3/2020 at 11:28 AM, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

....quite the crock of crap.....self righteous beyond.....been following NFL football since 1962 and NEVER once did I associate "Redskins" to Native Americans nor twist it into something detrimental....but the overtly sensitive "politically correctness crowd" wants you undivided attention......are we this screwed up?....

You NEVER associated Redskins and this logo with native americans?  How? What do you think the name is referring to?

 

[muppy]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

Wokeness is not about understanding the experience of others and showing consideration for them. It is about dehumanizing people by identifying them as members of groups, ranking them accordingly, and aggressively seeking out an enemy to destroy. When there is no enemy one must be invented.

 

The Redskins name isn't a primary target. It's a secondary target, but it's worth asking why it's a target at all. American Indians weren't upset about it. It wasn't hurting, offending, or oppressing anyone. Then one day the woke police unilaterally decided on behalf of a perceived victim group that this thing is now offensive.

 

It doesn't matter that there was no ill intent behind it, that they can't agree on the explanation for why it's supposedly offensive, or what it means to the fans, it only matters what it means to the offended. And "the offended" are the woke.

 

Strangely, that standard only applies to the targets of the woke. When the shoe is on the other foot we have a different standard. Say, for example, millions of people are offended by kneeling for the anthem as a show of disrespect to the flag. It no longer matters how it's perceived by the offended, but only what the woke claim it really means. It's pretty convenient.

 

These people claim to oppose racism, yet rank people according to race. They claim to oppose hate, yet preach wholesale condemnation of all who oppose them. They claim to value tolerance but seek the destruction of all who challenge their faith based ideology. These are not good people. They are who they purport to hate.

 

They've set race relations back decades in the name of "progress." Over a decade ago a majority of people, both black and white, thought race relations in America were good. That is no longer the case. The reason isn't because white people suddenly became more racist, but because there are people actively stirring the pot for the purpose of causing problems, and the woke are the ones buying the propaganda and spreading the message. They do nothing but spread racism and hatred.

 

 

Your post reads to me like an angry man who wants the status quo and there really are no issues need address in our country. You make some Very broad stroke statements there I won't elaborate since this thread isn't in the PPP ..As far as the name of a football team clearly for you this is only the tip of the iceberg. Being "woke" certainly "woke" you Rob. Quite an impassioned plea to what.....condemn changes You deem unnecessary . Gotcha.

[Rob's House]

8 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

Stop being lazy. Read the article and click on a link. Just to be transparent the link was embedded in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "... a new study from academics at the University of Michigan and UC Berkeley contradicts [the] data."

 

You will have the ENTIRE survey as well as the 31-page scholarly report that is associated with it. And well... for those who still are too bothered to check it out - it says Native Americans are offended....a BIG percentage of them.

 

Yeah, it's junk science. They even admit they don't have a representative national sample. The survey includes only 31% men, and 83% of those surveyed have no meaningful connection to a reservation. What constitutes their inclusion isn't clear. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren was one of those surveyed.

 

What is clear is that those conducting this "study" had their conclusion from the outset and designed their study to achieve that outcome.

 

Even with that, and watering down levels of offensiveness, they could still only get 49% to say they were even a little offended, which is crazy when you consider the level of manipulation and the eagerness with which Americans look for ways to be offended these days.

 

This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

Haven't gone through the entire upthread since yesterday to see if this has been posted anywhere, but you've gotta feel for Rivera at the moment, who seems tasked with the unenviable role of divining as Snyder whisperer what the boss will want, as well as accommodating incoming fire as graciously as possible on a "rudderless" boat. I wonder if he regrets taking the job yet?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/07/05/dan-snyders-been-out-of-country-with-a-small-circle-at-trying-time/  

[Niagara]

I have an idea. Call them the Washington Snowflakes in honor of the upcoming millennial fans. Not possible to offend with a snowflake.

 

A similar thing happened around gay marriage. Gay union was not good enough, it had to be called marriage, so marriage it is. Name of the game not is not to  offend, so Snowflakes is perfect in that regard.

[aceman_16]

27 minutes ago, jkx2 said:

You sound so white you must be an albino.

You DO know Albinism is NOT just a Caucasian disorder..... it affects blacks too (among others).

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, Niagara said:

I have an idea. Call them the Washington Snowflakes in honor of the upcoming millennial fans. Not possible to offend with a snowflake.

 

A similar thing happened around gay marriage. Gay union was not good enough, it had to be called marriage, so marriage it is. Name of the game not is not to  offend, so Snowflakes is perfect in that regard.

Did changing the name of a tax advantaged relationship structure make you less satisfied with your wife?

Edited July 6, 2020 by Jauronimo

[Rob's House]

15 minutes ago, Muppy said:

 

Your post reads to me like an angry man who wants the status quo and there really are no issues need address in our country. You make some Very broad stroke statements there I won't elaborate since this thread isn't in the PPP ..As far as the name of a football team clearly for you this is only the tip of the iceberg. Being "woke" certainly "woke" you Rob. Quite an impassioned plea to what.....condemn changes You deem unnecessary . Gotcha.

 

Seems like there's a lot of projection in this post. You are right that the name of a team is just the tip of the iceberg. Once that's gone you'll move on to the next target. And there will always be a next target.

 

If the "change" you seek is essentially eliminating a football rivalry between cowboys and indians, and you think that's pressing enough to garner this level of attention, especially when most of those who are supposedly aggrieved don't care, it really illustrates the extent to which the problems we face on this front are incredibly minor.

 

Back in the 50s and 60s people didn't have to search for things to be offended by. They didn't have to put statements under a microscope to interpret them as racist. We've come so far that people whose passion is fighting"racial injustice" have to work overtime to find new and creative ways to be offended.

 

This isn't progress and it doesn't move us away from racism. It creates racism among all races, often where none existed in the first place, all in the name of "change."

[Niagara]

12 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Did changing the name of a tax advantaged relationship structure make you less satisfied with your wife?

Married in 1991 to a woman. You? Is your partner a brave or a squaw?

[aceman_16]

57 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Yeah, it's junk science. They even admit they don't have a representative national sample. The survey includes only 31% men, and 83% of those surveyed have no meaningful connection to a reservation. What constitutes their inclusion isn't clear. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren was one of those surveyed.

 

What is clear is that those conducting this "study" had their conclusion from the outset and designed their study to achieve that outcome.

 

Even with that, and watering down levels of offensiveness, they could still only get 49% to say they were even a little offended, which is crazy when you consider the level of manipulation and the eagerness with which Americans look for ways to be offended these days.

 

This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism.

/yawn. So let me see IF I understand the game plan here.

 

FIRST swear by a faulty study that the ORIGINAL authors refuse to give details or even the questions involved in the study.

 

SECOND, go on forums utilizing said study as if its gospel without knowing ANY details other than what fits the 90% dont care narrative.

 

THIRD, when posters point out alternative studies they get they were bad ones with agendas.

 

FOUR, when a peer reviewed study gets completed with a representative sample AND they show the entire planet their data it gets dismissed behind "heresay....they are showing their transparency behind a paywall lololool."

 

AND FIVE when an open link gets provided the come back is "This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism."

 

Quite learned and adorable argument there. I wish people would just call their bias for what it is and stop pretending they have facts behind it. It is truly okay to say "This makes me mad and I feel that my identity is being threatened." One might get scoffed for it but it would be genuine.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by aceman_16

[Jauronimo]

3 minutes ago, Niagara said:

Married in 1991 to a woman. You? Is your partner a brave or a squaw?

And are you going to divorce now that same sex unions are also called marriage?  I would.  If the Redskins change their name I'm done with the NFL, football, and television in general.

[BarleyNY]

21 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Yeah, it's junk science. They even admit they don't have a representative national sample. The survey includes only 31% men, and 83% of those surveyed have no meaningful connection to a reservation. What constitutes their inclusion isn't clear. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren was one of those surveyed.

 

What is clear is that those conducting this "study" had their conclusion from the outset and designed their study to achieve that outcome.

 

Even with that, and watering down levels of offensiveness, they could still only get 49% to say they were even a little offended, which is crazy when you consider the level of manipulation and the eagerness with which Americans look for ways to be offended these days.

 

This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism.

Lol!  So that poll is somehow worse than a poll conducted four years ago by a newspaper with direct financial ties to the team and who won’t share their raw data?   Because you seem to be standing firmly by that one. 

[section122]

I have officially lost count of how many times I have started to type a reply to this thread and then thought better of it.

 

The pearl clutching about a team name change is incredible.  Did anyone get this upset when the Washington Bullets became the Washington Wizards?

[Niagara]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

And are you going to divorce now that same sex unions are also called marriage?  I would. 

Then You must not be married Chief.

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Seems like there's a lot of projection in this post. You are right that the name of a team is just the tip of the iceberg. Once that's gone you'll move on to the next target. And there will always be a next target.

 

If the "change" you seek is essentially eliminating a football rivalry between cowboys and indians, and you think that's pressing enough to garner this level of attention, especially when most of those who are supposedly aggrieved don't care, it really illustrates the extent to which the problems we face on this front are incredibly minor.

 

Back in the 50s and 60s people didn't have to search for things to be offended by. They didn't have to put statements under a microscope to interpret them as racist. We've come so far that people whose passion is fighting"racial injustice" have to work overtime to find new and creative ways to be offended.

 

This isn't progress and it doesn't move us away from racism. It creates racism among all races, often where none existed in the first place, all in the name of "change."

The Redskins debate is over 50 years old.  This isn't the next battle field in the war against micro-aggressions.  No microscope or new Berkeley TA was needed on the topic of the Redskins name. 

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

My great great great great great uncle Sigmund was killed by a Cowboy. I want the Cowboys name changed ASAP. Cowboys did horrible things back in the day, if the Redskins are forced to change their name than the Cowboys definitely should as well.

[DrDawkinstein]

15 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

/yawn. So let me see IF I understand the game plan here.

 

FIRST swear by a faulty study that the ORIGINAL authors refuse to give details or even the questions involved in the study.

 

SECOND, go on forums utilizing said study as if its gospel without knowing ANY details other than what fits the 90% dont care narrative.

 

THIRD, when posters point out alternative studies they get they were bad ones with agendas.

 

FOUR, when a peer reviewed study gets completed with a representative sample AND they show the entire planet their data it gets dismissed behind "heresay....they are showing their transparency behind a paywall lololool."

 

AND FIVE when an open link gets provided the come back is "This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism."

 

Quite learned and adorable argument there. I wish people would just call their bias for what it is and stop pretending they have facrs behind it. It is truly okay to say "This makes me mad and I feel that my identity is being threatened." One might get scoffed for it but it would be genuine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You havent seen the classic @Rob's House closer that he uses in every single one of these Washington threads:

 

"My wife is part Native American, and she doesnt care. Therefore no one does."

[Rob's House]

48 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I dunno about that "over a decade ago a majority of black people thought race relations in America were good"

I suspect that came from a survey with an agenda and suspect methodology.  I notice you don't include sources or links when you make such statements

But it's not like I'll stick around to debate - just a note that refraining from debate does not equate to inability to debate, or to agreement:

 

I always bring facts to the debate and I can always support them.

 

I tagged you when I posted the source of the last piece you asked for. Had to do it in PPP because the thread was closed, and it was from the pew research center. This is an updated version that shows (among other things) that even as recently as 2019 only 52% of black people thought that race had hindered their ability to get ahead. 46% said it either had no effect or (17%) actually helped them.

 

For the current issue you can see this gallup poll, or do a quick search to find others. I suppose your theory is that in the first decade of this century that people generally thought race relations were worse than they are today. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support that either.

 

Your screen shot is the entire "woke" movement in a nutshell. "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right."

 

As I said previously, when one of the major battles on the forefront is whether its racist to have an Indian as the mascot for a football team, we've run out of real issues to debate.

15 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Lol!  So that poll is somehow worse than a poll conducted four years ago by a newspaper with direct financial ties to the team and who won’t share their raw data?   Because you seem to be standing firmly by that one. 

 

I pointed out specifically what was wrong with the poll you cited. You have said nothing other than a conclusory allegation that the other was flawed.

[Niagara]

11 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

"This makes me mad and I feel that my identity is being threatened." One might get scoffed for it but it would be genuine.

This is Snyder's position. He grew up loving the team and its 80 yr history. He got the money to buy the team and people without a pot to piss in are demanding a name change. All those wanting a change should buy it and do what they want with it.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

 

Your screen shot is the entire "woke" movement in a nutshell. "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right."

 

 

Ironic telling people to think for themselves when you've fallen to the Marketing (read: Propaganda) that re-branded "basic human empathy" as "being woke" so that you can scoff and dismiss it.

 

No one is really talking about the Braves or Chiefs, because those are specific types (like Kings and Warriors). Indians... eh, a little lazy, but not horrible. Redskins though... come on. How are you still defending this? It's like saying a team in California named the "Yellowmen" is actually honoring the Chinese immigrants we enslaved to work on the railroads. We can do better.

[Punching Bag]

21 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You havent seen the classic @Rob's House closer that he uses in every single one of these Washington threads:

 

"My wife is part Native American, and she doesnt care. Therefore no one does."

 

His wife certainly does not care about intelligence or civility if she is still married to him.

[aceman_16]

29 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

My great great great great great uncle Sigmund was killed by a Cowboy. I want the Cowboys name changed ASAP. Cowboys did horrible things back in the day, if the Redskins are forced to change their name than the Cowboys definitely should as well.

Cute straw man argument.  You couldn't find a well thought-out response?

[BarleyNY]

9 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

 

I pointed out specifically what was wrong with the poll you cited. You have said nothing other than a conclusory allegation that the other was flawed.

I had addressed it somewhat in previous posts and just touched upon some obvious issues in my response to you.  Even if one ignores the inherent bias of a poll conducted by an entity that would benefit financially from a given outcome, there’s plenty of other red flags.  The fact that they accepted self identification as a Native American, that most respondents could not name a tribal affiliation, that they skewed the polling heavily to older people and that they won’t disclose their raw data for peer review are all issues.

 

But I’m curious why you’d accept the results of a pretty questionable poll at face value, but he highly critical of a much better conducted and completely open poll?   I mean, the WaPo poll doesn’t even pass the sniff test.  Who can get 90% of any group to agree on anything these days?  I’m not sure that 90% of people here would agree that the Earth is a sphere.  But 90% of Native Americans are totally cool with the term “Redskins“ even though they’ve been trying to get it changed for 50 years?  Come on.  How can you even convince yourself of that?

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I think every team in the NFL should just be named after a tree and be done with it. 

[SirAndrew]

You can always tell a lot about priorities from these arguments, and why the things we need to repair as a society continue to get ignored. I’m concerned about things like the decline of the nuclear family, drug addiction,  and other social issues that are huge problems. These are actual threats to the well being of our future. Changing or keeping the name of the Redskins doesn’t qualify as such a threat. Personally, I don’t really care, but I’m not going to get outraged over something so small. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by SirAndrew

[nucci]

1 minute ago, SirAndrew said:

You can always tell a lot about priorities from these arguments, and why the things we need to repair as a society continue to get ignored. I’m concerned about things like the decline of the nuclear family, drug addiction,  and other social issues that are huge problems. These are actual threats to the well being of our future. Changing or keeping the name of the Redskins doesn’t qualify as such a threat. Personally, I don’t really care, but I’m not going to get outraged over something so small. 

You're correct but this is a football message board. There are other sections to discuss the social issues you bring up.

[Greg S]

They should just change the name to Washington "At Least Were Not the ****ing Jets" and be done with it.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

9 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

Cute straw man argument.  You couldn't find a well thought-out response?

I can’t see changing the Redskins name and not changing the Cowboys who killed them. So many other teams will need to change their name if the Redskins are forced to. That’s why I posted every NFL team should be named after a tree. 

[Rob's House]

22 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

/yawn. So let me see IF I understand the game plan here.

 

FIRST swear by a faulty study that the ORIGINAL authors refuse to give details or even the questions involved in the study.

 

SECOND, go on forums utilizing said study as if its gospel without knowing ANY details other than what fits the 90% dont care narrative.

 

THIRD, when posters point out alternative studies they get they were bad ones with agendas.

 

FOUR, when a peer reviewed study gets completed with a representative sample AND they show the entire planet their data it gets dismissed behind "heresay....they are showing their transparency behind a paywall lololool."

 

AND FIVE when an open link gets provided the come back is "This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism."

 

Quite learned and adorable argument there. I wish people would just call their bias for what it is and stop pretending they have facrs behind it. It is truly okay to say "This makes me mad and I feel that my identity is being threatened." One might get scoffed for it but it would be genuine.

 

 

As I mentioned before, I pointed out the specific problems with that "study" after reading it. You made a conclusory allegation about a study I doubt you've read. If you have a legitimate criticism I won't dismiss it out of hand as you have. I'll read it and if it's baseless I will acknowledge that. But you've done nothing to debunk it or to establish that a significant number of actual Indians are offended by this name.

 

Additionally, "peer reviewed" does not mean reliable. In fact, several junk papers have passed through the peer review process and been published as legitimate science. There is a lot of material on this but I cited NYT so you couldn't dismiss it as right-wing bias.

 

Your final sentence is the most telling. Anyone who disagrees with you or asks you to support your argument feels that their "identity is threatened." Despite your obsession with racism, it's behind your comprehension that someone might see long-term dangers in pushing racial hypersensitivity to create strife where none exists.

 

I saw this coming years ago and was routinely mocked by people such as yourself for being paranoid, yet here we are in the midst of a Maoist cultural revolution where no one may speak against the movement without fear of being doxed, fired, bullied, and/or banned. The fact that so many of you find this healthy and acceptable is far more disturbing to me than a football team's mascot.

 

Personally, I don't care if the NFL changes every name of every team or shuts down altogether. It's a hobby, it's not that serious. What concerns me is the fact that one can't make a rational, measured, and reasonable argument in opposition without being demonized and having motives imputed to them.

 

I'm not worried about myself either. I'm old enough to navigate this world until I check out without too much concern. But there are generations of people coming behind me who deserve to have all the same rights and privileges that you espouse for all people, that are being stripped away from them in some perverse sense of racial retributive justice.

 

This claim is always met with dismissive sarcasm where the one claiming victim status (or one vicariously assuming victim status on behalf of another) mocks the accused oppressor for claiming victim status. Now I'm not claiming to be oppressed, but I'm kind of tired of being called an oppressor.

 

Personally, I have insulated myself so that it would be very difficult to cancel me, but I've seen it happen to others. One of countless such examples is a woman who had her business destroyed by a raging group of activists who pressured companies to cut her off because she posted a meme that said "racism is a pigment of your imagination." You may disagree with that statement, but it's not racist, and definitely does not give cause for her personal and financial destruction. I think she has a better claim to victim status than one who has to look beyond his own lifetime for such status.

 

Where does it go from here? If I hold a black man to the same standard to which I hold a white man, that is now racist.  In saner times it was racist to criticize someone for being a minority, now it's racist to criticize someone who is a minority. This isn't progress.  This is destructive to society at large. It does not help minorities. It does not help anyone other than those who thrive on the misery of others.

 

So as I said before, this runs a lot deeper than a mascot. I'm not even a Redskins fan and I don't care for Dan the Fan. They can move the team to Canada and call them the Walruses for all I care. What I have a problem with is the rationale behind it and the bigger movement that is bringing this pressure in the first place. If a grass roots movement of Indians (and I don't mean on a broad scale, not a small minority of Indians) determined they found it dehumanizing I would be more understanding, but this is fueled not by them but by white people with a social agenda, and the Indian population is just a proxy. I can't support that.

 

 

[May Day 10]

They should just change it.  Redskins is pretty blatant anyway.  It doesnt bother me, but I get it.  Just sick of the yearly debate.  Get it done with so I can get used to the other name.

 

 

Im a Cleveland Indians fan.  It was the same way with the "Chief Wahoo" thing.  I told people it was a matter of time and the team better just rip the band-aid off and re-brand now... not only the Chief, but the "Indian" name.  Do it right instead of reactionary.  I just want them to change the team name because they lack an identity without Wahoo anyways, and the debate and watching everyone dig in is tiresome.

[Rico]

8 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I think every team in the NFL should just be named after a tree and be done with it. 

Like Washington Sequoias. Sounds Indian-enough, maybe they could keep the logo.