I’m sorry you felt the need to do spifflog’s work for him, but thank you for the facts.
According to this article there are at least 183 Native American schools, so the three mentioned are .016% of these schools.
What point were you making, spifflog and/or Giraffes Can’t Dance, by pointing out that less than 2% of Native American schools use “Redskins” as their mascot?
Snowboarder Bo, I’m glad we were able to do some simple googling for you. We can set a time and I’ll get someone so show you how to do it.
You know full well the point that was being made as the question has been asked at least 6 times here by my count. You either haven’t answered because you don’t want to or don’t have an answer for it, I’ll presume the latter
This is great debates, and there are people who are tying to understand your points.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam, there are two polls, a decade apart that say the same thing, that small minority of Native Americans are offended by the term with the vast majority not. The second by a widely respected liberal newspaper that would have liked nothing more than to show that 90% are offended. This after a concerted national effort to call attention to how offensive the term is. The term is used by some Native American schools, as are ‘Indians’ and the like. This seems odd to some as there are no teams called the Negros, or some such name, which we are told is equally offensive. On the other hand, you and others are saying that the term is so obviously offensive that it’s self evident to all.
So here we are. You are no closer to getting the Redskins to change their name than you were 20 years ago. I’d suggest that you try and address these questions to folks that are truly on the fence on this issue. Explain to those trying to understand if the name should really be changed because it it so offensive, or if this is just the PC army running amuck. Some of these apparent dichotomies are at the heart of the questions that I hear in the office or in the subway here in DC all the time so it’s not just me or others here.
I don’t really care. But you argument isn’t persuasive, either here or nationally. And with the results or the latest poll, the other side has declared victory and I’d guess, (admittedly have a very limited way of knowing) that the majority of people in the middle, who will have to pressure the sponsors of the NFL into changing the name are closing the book on this.
Or you can just be dismissive, hand waive it all away continue to bitch about me not doing your homework and call it a day.
Look, there’s a reason why Native Americans aren’t offended by the “Redskins” name. It’s because they’re not ignorant as to its meaning. The droves of white people being offended on behalf of Native Americans and pushing Native Americans to be offended, are ignorant to the historical context.
These white people yearn for a movement to become apart of. They swim in self-indulgent waters.
These white people also feel an intellectual superiority to minorities, constantly dictating to them how to react and when to be upset. The agitators of racial divide. The racists that pat you on the head.
Notice how these same white people aren’t up-in-arms over Notre Dame’s mascot: the Fighting Irish.
Actually, a not insignificant proportion of Native Americans are offended by the “Redskins” name. Even if you take the lowest survey result, the approximately 10% of self-identified Native Americans responding to the Post poll, that’s not a negligible number. Moreover, Native American organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians oppose the use of the word:
Your condescending paternalistic interpretation of Native American attitudes is way off. The Native Americans who object to the “redskin” word aren’t being “pushed” into their objections by white people. They’ve been pushing back against such usage of ethnic slurs for decades.
[QUOTE=Giraffes Can’t Dance]
Notice how these same white people aren’t up-in-arms over Notre Dame’s mascot: the Fighting Irish.
[/QUOTE]
Because Irish and Irish-American people themselves haven’t objected to it AFAIK (and also because “Irish” isn’t an ethnic slur per se—although the association of Irish people with fighting could be described that way). If significant numbers of Irish people or Irish-representing organizations come forth with objections to the name “Fighting Irish”, the way that Native Americans have done about “redskins”, I’ll be happy to support them in working for a name change.
See, contrary to your beliefs, it’s not actually bossy white liberals who are initiating complaints about ethnic slurs and dragging poor bewildered meek minority groups along with them. It’s minority groups themselves who have taken the lead in speaking out against the slurs.
I skipped most of the thread, but why do we just assume that “redskin” is an ethnic slur? It’s not the same as the others mentioned (nigger, spic, yid, kike, etc.) because those terms are widely known to be offensive and indeed cause offense.
I mean, have you ever been at an indian casino and some drunk redneck starts going off about all of the stupid, lazy redskins around? Does your father in law embarrass you at Thanksgiving by bitching about how the redskins are ruining the country? Are there native americans who recall the days of their youth when this slur was hurled at them freely?
Frankly, I have never heard of the term except how it is connected to the NFL team in Washington. Of course, my own personal knowledge is not the sine qua non of public policy, but I think we should first at least determine that the term offends someone and why it offends those people.
And there has to be a benchmark. What if 1% of Pittsburgh steel workers believed that having the name Steelers as a sports name did not appreciate the dangerous job they do? Is 1% good enough? Is it 1% of the affected group, or 1% of everyone? If it is 1% of the group, then how to we define that group? Almost every white person says that they “have Indian blood in the family” and it is largely a myth.
Do we have any objective standards for this or just wait for the left to give its latest decree?
Yes, yes there are, along with recalling being called the charming “Shitting Bull”, “Prairie Nigger”, “fucking squaw” and things like being asked/told to do a rain dance or listening to “woowooo” war whoops being derisively sent my way.
I’m not a mutt. I have my picture ID and everything. I’m not a mascot. I’m a proud member of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
““We will not stop until that name is changed and we will never give up,” said Melanie Benjamin, chief executive of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians in east-central Minnesota. “We have children who want what every American kid wants — to grow up and be proud of who they are — and proud of their heritage. We are not mascots.”” Nickname protesters tell NFL: 'We are not mascots'
In what way was “redskin” hurled at them? How common was this “redskin” taunt and what form did it take?
I am not arguing with you, but what form did “Shitting Bull” take as an insult? “Hey Shitting Bull, stop fucking around and wash my damn car!”? Was it the same as that or different? Would it have been different had they said “Sitting Bull come wash my car”?
Just because fucking Melanie Benjamin says something doesn’t mean we should all jump at her command. Is she really offended or been told to be offended?
Them? I was talking about me. And it came in the form of being name called prior to me breaking a nose or two.
I don’t appreciate you using “fucking” in front of my Chief’s name. And, yes, she is offended on her own behalf and for our Band.
I can tell that throwing chum out would be more productive than having discourse with you.
Well, if you hadn’t skipped most of the thread, you would have seen the numerous references to the fact that “redskin” is recognized as a slur in official dictionary definitions, and has been for at least the last half-century or more. Check out this post for sample cites.
Somebody who isn’t aware of the well-documented objective standards because he couldn’t be bothered to read the thread isn’t in a very good position to be accusing other people of intellectual laziness and passivity.
Missed this gem:
FFS, are you seriously suggesting that it might not be insulting to call a random Native American person “Sitting Bull”, as long as you’re not using actual profanity or belligerence?
Does that really sound even potentially acceptable to you? Would you say to a Chinese-American hotel clerk “Hey Charlie Chan, please extend my reservation for another night”? Would you say to a black passerby “Excuse me Jackie Robinson, I think these are the keys you dropped”? Do you think that sort of address is okay, as long as you’re using a polite tone of voice and no swearwords?
Do you seriously not see that it’s insulting to use the name of a well-known person from some ethnic group as a generic descriptor or form of address for any member of that ethnic group?
Take this sort of attempt at insult to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
EVERYONE, lose the condescending phrases in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
You didn’t do any googling so I don’t know what you’re crowing about here. In fact, your attempt to shift responsibility to someone else for providing your cites was successful, but it wasn’t me who accepted what is rightfully your burden, so you should just be thanking someone else for doing what you are either unwilling or incapable of.
I don’t know full well the point that was being made but I do know you don’t know what I know. Please ask the question that you want me to answer.
Yes, it is Great Debates and one of the precepts of Great Debates is that posters who make claims or assertions can be asked to back up those claims with citations; you failed to do so and failed to acknowledge that it was your responsibility to do so under the rules and conventions of the forum you are participating in. I called you out on your shitty debate tactic and will continue to call you out when you attempt to shift your responsibility to someone else.
. No, that isn’t what the poll says and you appear to be deliberately distorting the poll to suit your aims. The polls you cite only show that people who self-identified as Native American for the poll said they did not find the term offensive.
How do you know that the newspaper would have liked nothing more than to show that 90% are offended? Can you provide a cite, or is this just something that you “know”?
So your point in bringing up the Native American schools was that you think it’s “odd” that they have that name? Just that? You were crowing about them to us only as examples of what you perceive to be odd behavior? :dubious:
Also, who has told you that nigger and redskin are equally offensive? Can you cite that post? :dubious:
And third, the things you say I said I didn’t say. In fact, I doubt you could quote anyone in this thread who’s said that the offensive nature of the term is “self-evident”, but feel free to try… Oh wait, you don’t think you need to back up your assertions with facts, so you prolly won’t try and justify your assertion here.
This is really where you lost the debate, because you went and tried to make this a personal thing. “You”, “you” “you”, “I’d suggest”, etc. You aren’t quoting my posts, you’re just making shit up and then ascribing it to me. How’s that working out for you? did you think no one would notice that your arguments have no substance because they would be dazzled by your personal attacks on me? :dubious:
:rolleyes: Again, your fundamental misunderstanding about how the Great Debates forum works is brought to the fore; perhaps you should stay away from things you don’t understand.
I’m glad you were able to get that all off your chest. You’re just posting silliness now.
• The word “Redskins” is not a slur in modern vernaculars.
• White liberals don’t have the guts to tell the NAACP, or the UNF, to change their titles which incorporate offensive words related to African Americans.
• Where’s the outrage over the “Fighting Irish” of Notre Dame?
Hey, white liberals. Leave minorities alone. They’re not your puppets. Native Americans remain unfazed by the Redskins nickname. Stop forcing movements.
You could easily test your hypothesis by going to a handful of reservations and start calling people “Redskin”. I mean, if this poll is correct (it isn’t for all the reasons asserted above), and it really isn’t offensive to a majority of actual Indians (it is), no one will be at all upset (they will be).
It was a slur and carries the history of being a slur. And it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s still in use among certain demographics.
If a national advocacy group consisting of Native Americans want to use it, it’s their call.
That’s not considered a slur. The Irish are proud of fighting. 
If these children want “what every American kid wants”, then surely they want to live in a country where there is free speech, right?
If someone wanted to start up a team named the “Illiterate Perverted Scotsmen of Clan McStupidface” and paint themselves with woad and scream “FREEDOM!” on the field, I’d just smile, maybe laugh a little, and then get on with my life.
Unfortunately, there is no legal right not to be offended. There is, however, a problem with “breaking a nose or two” as a result of being name called.
If people want to be idiots, or uneducated, or boors, there is only so much that we can do about it. At some point, everyone has to realize that others’ opinions of them do not define who they are or who they can become.
The majority of Native Americans are not offended by the nickname. Look at every poll that’s been done on the subject. Shoot, there remain in existence Native American schools who have adopted the nickname for themselves. They’ve done so because they understand it’s true meaning, not the meaning projected upon it by white liberals.