Not precisely. I’m pointing out that one else in this discussion is doing anything but complaining about the situation without having the slightest idea what real-world events are necessary to change it.
:dubious: Ahem. Did you happen to miss my above post where I opined on this very topic of what real-world events I consider likely to precipitate the name change at some point in the future?
We’re all just people talking on the internet. Is there some significance to pointing out that no one is doing anything about something? This isn’t an activism forum; this is a discussion board. It just seems like a passive-aggressive way of suggesting that if you’re not doing “doing something” then your opinion on the issue is not of value. Besides a passive-aggressive swipe, it’s also a fallacy. Having opinions about things is perfectly valid, even if it’s a thing that isn’t among your top priorities to commit personal time and effort to.
It’s this. It’s all about the benjamins. Very interesting article in the Washington Post this weekend. Not mind boggling, just interesting. It said that after the President questioned the name, the NFL waited to see if sponsors would take up the cause. If they did, Dan would have been pressured to changed the name. If they didn’t (and they didn’t) the other NFL owners wouldn’t care and they’d be no pressure to change the name.
I think we forget just how many human rights issues (if you view this as one) falter due to apathy or indifference.
You’d think if ESPN got behind something, it would grow some legs and take off. They’ve railed against Snyder and the Redskins name for a while now. But I guess for them, too, it’s put your money where your mouth is. Refuse to discuss the team or show their highlights or put them on MNF. I don’t even know how effective that would be.
I don’t think it’s about that, it’s about sponsors. Budweiser, Miller, Hotel chains, food products. Those are the types that would have to say, “we aren’t advertising during NFL games until this name is changed.”
I think there’s a very big backlash against political correctness and attacks on the majority culture brewing. The Redskins are here to stay, especially given this new poll.
The poll simply highlights the massive disconnect between the semi-professional offenderati and the people that are supposed to be offended, and largely reveals the inchoate frustration on the part of the intellectual leaders that the people aren’t smart enough to know when to be offended, and not compliant enough to follow the lead of their betters and GET offended.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
So … the actions people should take are: wait?
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: People should take whatever actions their conscience dictates. All I’m predicting is that those actions are extremely unlikely to change Snyder’s mind, and that the name change will happen after he’s no longer the owner of the team.
That’s a cozy little hypothesis for people who like to think of themselves as too sophisticated and levelheaded for all this “PC nonsense”, but it is open to question.
The use of the term “offenderati” really says all that anyone needs to know about your view on this.
But beyond that, as someone who is not Native American, I am perfectly justified in thinking the name “Redskins” is racist garbage, regardless of what Native Americans think. And if 9 percent of Native Americans agree with me, then I don’t think that proves me wrong. Surely, the Native Americans who are actively trying to get the name changed are among that 9 percent. Or do you think they’re pretending?
Why so dismissive? You’ve pointed out that there’s very little legal recourse for forcing a name change. So, for people who think the name should change, what else should they be doing, but talking about why the name is a problem, and waiting until there’s enough popular support for their views for it to start mattering to people who are in a position to force a change?
I don’t really think there should be sports teams named after ethnic groups at all (at least not extant ethnic groups). “Jews” is not a slur, but I would think most Americans would find it highly inappropriate to name a professional football team “The Jews”. Why is “The Indians” more acceptable? I suppose only because of the tradition of treating Native Americans as a sort of archetypal character (and stereotype). That strikes me as discrimination, and “it’s tradition” is a poor reason to keep on discriminating.
I also don’t think I believe that this is a matter of “getting offended on behalf of other people”. I’m not reading some private correspondence between the team and the Native American groups here, I’m reacting to the image the team shows to me. If, say, one of my co-workers used the N-word in conversation with me, I’d find that offensive too, even though I’m not Black.
You are perfectly justified to think what you please. The question is: do you, and your compatriots, have any kind of way to enforce your opinion on to the real world? In other words, you, and nine percent of Native Americans, think it’s horrible. But others don’t care, including Dan Snyder. There, the story ends.
Now, you guys made an effort to kill Dan’s federal trademark. That might have been useful, because it would have robbed him of easy ways to enforce his intellectual property rights – but that failed.
So I don’t doubt your sincerity – I contend it’s impotent.
Because the notion that their offense should mandate a name change offends me.
Luckily, my offended response is that it shouldn’t mandate a name change, and, sure enough, it won’t, so my offended response is immediately soothed by the palliative intrusion of reality.