Getting Offended on Behalf of Other People (Redskins)

Great Debates
81

Yep. My youngest son is a member of our Band. Once he turns 18… nope. I, myself, don’t actually qualify since sometime just after I was born the Blood Quantum was changed. But, since 6 of my 7 siblings were qualified, I and a younger sibling were Grandfathered in.

My sons can always say they are Mille Lacs… they just can’t say they are members of the Band. (And they kind of wish I had married a cousin because then they could enjoy a few benefits, too. At least they got double insurance until the 2 older turned 18.)

82

please tell me how? Or who am I being a “lackey” of?

83

Oh for fuck’s sake.

84

There’s nothing particularly “far-left” about the opinion that ethnic slurs shouldn’t be used as sports team names.

But if you think there is, then you must be quite upset at my abovementioned examples of teams like the Frisco (TX) Coons and the Pekin (IL) Chinks having their names changed. (Associated playing venues named, respectively, the Coon Memorial Stadium and the Chink Rink skating facility had their names changed at the same time.)

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg for the widespread success of this particular, er, “far-left agenda”!

And that’s just a fraction of similar changes documented at the linked site.

Face it, DerekMichaels00, the ship has effectively sailed on this issue. The Washington Redskins may not change their name while Snyder owns them, since he seems very determined to make this issue his hill to die on, but they will become more and more of an outlier, and eventually more and more of an embarrassment.

If you wouldn’t approve of “Coons” or “Chinks” or “Wops” or “Hymies” or “Micks” or “Spics” as a team name, then there’s nothing at all “far-left” about also considering “Redskins” inappropriate.

85

That’s because those groups actually mind those names. The poll, which was done with standard opinion polling standards, shows the aboriginals don’t mind.
There’s also a lot more blacks, Asians, Italians, Jews, Irish, and Hispanics than aboriginals (and I use the term because I’m an American and I’m native born).

I’m all for racial/ethnic equality, as in groups all minority groups having the same rights/privileges in law and being subject to the same laws. I’m not for cultural Maoism where we eliminate the majority heritage/symbols tho.

86

I’m just making fun of the political sloganeering you used.

87

Nah; that’s because we don’t memorialize traitors to our country with the honor of naming anything after them that is good and worthwhile.

88

(bolding mine)

Like where? How many of these can you show us?

89

That sounds like a rather vague criterion, especially given that there are plenty of members of each of those groups who don’t particularly mind those names. (There are lots of Irish people who’ll call themselves “Micks”, for instance.)

So, exactly what percentage of a group do you think has to officially “mind” an ethnic slur before it becomes inappropriate to use that slur for a sports team name? And how should that percentage be officially assessed?

Personally, I think it’s a lot more efficient and simpler just to consult contemporary dictionaries and usage guidelines and eliminate all the ethnic-group names that are generally recognized as pejorative or derogatory. In fact, it’s even simpler and more efficient just to eliminate the use of names of all modern ethnic groups whatsoever from the category of “things to call a sports team”.

[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
The poll, which was done with standard opinion polling standards, shows the aboriginals don’t mind.

[/quote]

Actually, what it showed was that 9 out of 10 people who identify themselves as Native American when asked by a random pollster on the phone about their ethnic identity don’t mind:

[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]

There’s also a lot more blacks, Asians, Italians, Jews, Irish, and Hispanics than aboriginals (and I use the term because I’m an American and I’m native born).

[/quote]

That’s not actually how acceptability of ethnic-group identifiers is determined. However, if you genuinely find it difficult to distinguish between the concepts or nomenclature of American Indians/Native Americans and that of native-born American citizens of other ethnicities, far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you from relying on alternative nomenclature that will make such a herculean task a little easier for you.

However, I can’t give you a pass on the ignorance of believing that there are “a lot more” Jews than Native Americans in the US. There are actually something over 5 million of each of them at present. Moreover, the population of Asian-Americans (including South Asians) is only approximately three times as big at around 17 million, while Italian-Americans are actually less numerous than Asian-Americans, at around 15 million.

The groups in your list that do actually count as “a lot more” than Native Americans are Irish-Americans at about 34 million and Hispanic Americans at about 54 million.

Which, according to your “logic”, would make it just fine to name a sports team, for instance, the “Yids”, as long as some undetermined minimum percentage of people claiming to be Jewish in a telephone poll professed “not to mind”. :dubious:

[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]

I’m all for racial/ethnic equality, as in groups all minority groups having the same rights/privileges in law and being subject to the same laws. I’m not for cultural Maoism where we eliminate the majority heritage/symbols tho.

[/QUOTE]

Using stereotyped cartoon images and derogatory nicknames for ethnic minorities as commercial marketing logos for professional sports franchises doesn’t really count as a “heritage”. Especially given that such ethnic-nickname team names are mostly a creation of the twentieth century.

The “Red Stockings”, the “Doves” (the original name of the “Braves”), the “Tigers”, the “Angels”, the “Bridegrooms” (the original name of the “Dodgers”), the “Brewers”, the “Orioles”, the “Athletics”, the “Philadelphias” (now “Phillies”) and the “Giants”, among others, all go back farther than the “Indian-themed” nicknames of various teams.

And of course, all those baseball names are decades older than the names of the various johnny-come-lately organizations belonging to the NFL.

90

Actually, half of the figure you give are native American who are not people that are like 80% white, 15% mulatto, and a few percent Cherokee/Hopi, whatever. Also, Jews are winners who have sought and have played a prominent role in American life. Not to mention, even for as loud as ADL can be at times, fact is there are still Jewish characters in culture/TV that aren’t flattering (think Ken Rosenberg in GTA or Lionel Hutz in Simpsons) that most Jewish people don’t really mind or get all SJW over.

91

This garbled sentence is extremely unclear, but I’m guessing that what you’re trying to argue is that there aren’t “really” approximately as many Native Americans as Jews in the US, on the grounds that most Native Americans have some mixed heritage and therefore “shouldn’t count”?

In which case, your previous argument about the majority of (self-identified) Native Americans “not minding” the Redskins team name completely collapses. Because, since the pollsters didn’t check the respondents’ actual genetic heritage, we have no way of knowing how many, or which ones, were “real” Native Americans according to your rather odd criteria.

[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
Also, Jews are winners who have sought and have played a prominent role in American life.

[/quote]

:dubious: :dubious: :dubious: Your point being, apparently, that Native Americans by contrast are “losers” who are largely marginalized in American life? And therefore are fair game for having stereotypical images and pejorative nicknames of their people appropriated as official commercial symbols for non-Native American sports franchises?

Wow.

92

I think that is it in a nutshell. But we are trying to adjust that… at least after a decade or so of a court battle my tribe had to engage in (and won). I’m sure we’ll have to fight and fight and fight… un/fortunately most of us are not rioting types. So we’ll keep fighting legally.
-Hennepin County said we weren’t a Fed Rec’d rez… after a decade or so… we won. Fishing rights? We won. Oil pipe lines from Canada… running through our lands (rice, water, homes) we’re still fighting.

93

I used to be indifferent to Washington’s name but an ad I saw kind of tipped the balance for me. It showed a bunch of Native Americans engaged in various activities and at the end it said “You wouldn’t call them Redskins, would you?”

And, no, I wouldn’t. Not unless I was ready to get my ass kicked.

94

Both teams are defunct.

95

Snowboarder Bo, the second entry on the Google search for “Indian Reservations with a Redskin mascot” shows some schools on Reservations with the Redskin mascot. I’m guessing your Googlefu skills are better than mine and on par with this type of search.

This is like every other political discussion. The goal posts move all the time. Before this poll came out if the numbers were 91% offended to 9% not, this would be the end of the discussion for you. There wouldn’t be any discussion if the respondents were “really native American” or “what percentage” they were. What’s that legal quote: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table?”

I’m guessing if there were 10 schools with the Redskin mascot, the bar would be at 15. If it was 15 the bar would be 20.
Kimstu, you seem knowledgeable and plugged into this. Can you answer the question I posed earlier, because I’d really like your opinion:

I’m honestly trying to understand if it’s so universally accepted that Redskin is so offensive, why are some Native Americans still using it?

96

But only when the opposing quarterback is black.

Regards,
Shodan

97

Out of curiosity, if you were denied the ability to accuse people of hypocrisy based on their bizarro-world counterpart’s fantasy hypothetical behavior in an alternate universe, would you still have an argument to make?

98

I think that’s good enough reason for the team to find a new name. How many of what people find it offensive is just a way to make an argument about it, not something that will lead toward resolution. It’s just a name, we don’t need to get to the point of calling it the R-word in order change it.

99

There’s a notorious image of a Cleveland Indians fan in redface and headdress in heated conversation with a Native American activist outside a game. When I went looking for it, I found this story in which the fan meets the activist again and apologizes, which was rather heartening.

In this case it’s not so much the team name that’s the issue as the cartoonish “Chief Wahoo” mascot. I’m not offended on their behalf but I can certainly understand why people would object to being portrayed in such a manner, and why “de-Chiefing” is becoming more of a thing.

100

This is a far worse case of using offensive imagery. I never understood the problem with the word ‘Indian’, but the mascot is clearly offensive. The DC team has the opposite problem, their logo isn’t the least bit offensive, but the name is evoking an old odor that never went away entirely.

For humorous relief, there are a number of teams known as ‘The Fighting Quakers’. I haven’t seen the Society of Friends get all up in arms about that.