Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Washington Redskins trademark cancelled

Washington Redskins trademark cancelled (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Fixed.
If that is how you fix things, I am thankful that you are not my mechanic!

In the United States, "redskin" is regarded as a racial epithet by some, neutral by some people, and by many Native American tribes as non offensive. Several predominately Native American schools use the name for their athletic teams, most notably the 98% Native American enrollment of the Red Mesa High School Redskins.
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 01:54 PM
 
When Quinn the Inuit gets here...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Per-apologize because this is a new day and I may not remember everything from yesterday but – if the concept you're using to defend the name (noble savages) has died out, doesn't that undermine the defense?
The concept hasn't died out, my point was it isn't common enough for me to have a modern example ready at hand... other than things like equating sports teams with "Native American warriors".

To be clear, the noble savage concept is racist. I'm not questioning that. I'm saying it's less damaging than your more garden variety racism.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying it's less damaging than your more garden variety racism.
...is this supposed to be some kind of justification?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 02:53 PM
 
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by unicast reversepath View Post
If that is how you fix things, I am thankful that you are not my mechanic!

In the United States, "redskin" is regarded as a racial epithet by some, neutral by some people, and by many Native American tribes as non offensive. Several predominately Native American schools use the name for their athletic teams, most notably the 98% Native American enrollment of the Red Mesa High School Redskins.
98% aboriginal enrollment... obviously the other 2% are oppressing them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...is this supposed to be some kind of justification?
It's an observation.

Energy to fight battles is limited, which ones are fought should be chosen wisely.

The concept of exceptionalism is problematic, however I see the bestowing of some form of sub-exceptionalism to a group as a lesser crime than bestowing no exceptionalism whatsoever, which is the fate most suffer in the eyes of the exceptionalist.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 06:24 PM
 
My 2 cents .....

The issue here is that language is not static … it evolves over time. In its origin the term “Redskin” was akin to saying “Negro”. And just how saying the latter is now considered uncouth at best or insulting at worst the same is increasingly true for the former. Once the slave trade came to America skin color became the predominant means of social organization. So while denotatively such terms are merely “descriptive" … connotatively they were also a means of reinforcing a social order rooted in white supremacy. I believe it was Subego who said earlier that "context matters". Well make no mistake about it good people ... this was the historical context! And this is why “Negro” is rejected by the African-American community now because it is term reminiscent of the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. A time when Jim Crow was the order of the day. This is why the N-word is rejected because it is reminiscent of the slavery era. These terms “Redskin” and “Negro” haven’t changed in the denotative sense … but in the connotative sense they most definitely have over time.

Additionally, while the vast majority of the Native American population was wiped out by Eurasian diseases (e.g. smallpox, etc.), the remnants underwent what can only be called a genocide by any reasonable measure at the hands of white settlers. Bounties on Native Americans were claimed with the “redskin” of severed genitalia or scalps as proof of “Indian Kill”. White soldiers would collect or even wear such items as “trophies”. So again, the term “redskin” has connotations that are simply painful and offensive to large segments of the Native American community.

So with all that being said, my issue with Mr. Snyder is that he is behaving like a petulant child by adopting the all too familiar position that the only thing worthy of discussion is his “intent”. As if the people who are negatively impacted by his insistence on using that term as the name of his team don’t even matter. Imagine if he were giving a speech before an African-American civic organization and insisted upon using the term “Negro” or “Colored” … even after being told in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t cool? The bottom line is that when one is not a member of an ethnic group ... one doesn't get to dictate what said ethnic group should or should not be offended by when it comes to language. Especially when one's knowledge of said ethnic group's history, culture, and collective experience is marginal at best. It's a simple concept that unfortunately some people don't seem to comprehend.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2014, 06:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by unicast reversepath View Post
If that is how you fix things, I am thankful that you are not my mechanic!

In the United States, "redskin" is regarded as a racial epithet by some, neutral by some people, and by many Native American tribes as non offensive. Several predominately Native American schools use the name for their athletic teams, most notably the 98% Native American enrollment of the Red Mesa High School Redskins.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
98% aboriginal enrollment... obviously the other 2% are oppressing them.
What is getting me is that both of you are treating native Americans as though they are homogenous, even though I presume both of you would know better (Shaddim in particular, since he apparently has a familiar history, although he has repeatedly characterized NAs in a homogenous manner in various instances already).

The fact is that NAs are a widely disparate collection of individual tribes, many of whom had no contact with each other. They had different traditions, peculiarities, responses to Euro invasion, and resulting treatment. It is no different than if NAs had invaded Europe and not the other way 'round - the British, French, German, Czech, etc. would all require wildly different approaches. And it is clear that NAs also have differing opinions on the use of the term, likely stemming from various experiences of each particular tribe in their particular regions.

If some NAs do not find it offensive, I do not see how that negates the argument of those NAs that do legitimately find it offensive.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2014, 08:22 AM
 
No, what you don't get is, I don't care. It's a historical reference that hasn't been significant for over a century. Today's NAs aren't "redskins", savages, or even "indians", they're Americans, and as homogenous as any other culture that's part of this country. Blah.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2014, 09:42 PM
 
It is completely puzzling to me that you seem quite so apathetic in your ignorance. NAs are not homogenous in the slightest, particularly in relation to other cultures.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2014, 01:10 AM
 
"not homogenous in the slightest"
Incorrect. This is 2014, not 1914, I believe that a great deal of your ignorance is showing, and you haven't a clue what life for a young NA is like. Hint: they aren't sitting around wearing feathers and smoking peace pipes all day.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2014, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
If some NAs do not find it offensive, I do not see how that negates the argument of those NAs that do legitimately find it offensive.
This is the problem with everything right here. There's ALWAYS someone who's offended. The ones who are offended get the attention and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2014, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
My 2 cents .....

The issue here is that language is not static … it evolves over time. In its origin the term “Redskin” was akin to saying “Negro”. And just how saying the latter is now considered uncouth at best or insulting at worst the same is increasingly true for the former. Once the slave trade came to America skin color became the predominant means of social organization. So while denotatively such terms are merely “descriptive" … connotatively they were also a means of reinforcing a social order rooted in white supremacy. I believe it was Subego who said earlier that "context matters". Well make no mistake about it good people ... this was the historical context! And this is why “Negro” is rejected by the African-American community now because it is term reminiscent of the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. A time when Jim Crow was the order of the day. This is why the N-word is rejected because it is reminiscent of the slavery era. These terms “Redskin” and “Negro” haven’t changed in the denotative sense … but in the connotative sense they most definitely have over time.

Additionally, while the vast majority of the Native American population was wiped out by Eurasian diseases (e.g. smallpox, etc.), the remnants underwent what can only be called a genocide by any reasonable measure at the hands of white settlers. Bounties on Native Americans were claimed with the “redskin” of severed genitalia or scalps as proof of “Indian Kill”. White soldiers would collect or even wear such items as “trophies”. So again, the term “redskin” has connotations that are simply painful and offensive to large segments of the Native American community.
The only thing I'd want to add here as a sort of PSA is that this is not a "white man" phenomena, this is a human nature phenomena of any diverse, societal-order. When it's not skin-color, it's some other factor including gender, pedigree, and/or creed.

So with all that being said, my issue with Mr. Snyder is that he is behaving like a petulant child by adopting the all too familiar position that the only thing worthy of discussion is his “intent”. As if the people who are negatively impacted by his insistence on using that term as the name of his team don’t even matter. Imagine if he were giving a speech before an African-American civic organization and insisted upon using the term “Negro” or “Colored” … even after being told in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t cool?


The bottom line is that when one is not a member of an ethnic group ... one doesn't get to dictate what said ethnic group should or should not be offended by when it comes to language. Especially when one's knowledge of said ethnic group's history, culture, and collective experience is marginal at best. It's a simple concept that unfortunately some people don't seem to comprehend.

OAW
This I will take issue with. Invariably, it is mostly white people telling other ethnicities what they should find offensive. In this case, the loudest voices of opposition are other white people with 80+% of Native Americans finding little to no offense by the term "redskins".
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2014, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
This is the problem with everything right here. There's ALWAYS someone who's offended. The ones who are offended get the attention and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
and usually they have their hands out. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's generally true.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2014, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This I will take issue with. Invariably, it is mostly white people telling other ethnicities what they should find offensive. In this case, the loudest voices of opposition are other white people with 80+% of Native Americans finding little to no offense by the term "redskins".
I found this to be the big irony of the paper which has been cited. Though the Redskins were not one of the teams covered, of the ones that were, a majority of the Native American respondents liked those representations. The paper also remarked on how the representations gave the subjects a lower self-image, and theorizes this is due to feeling limited by these narrow representations of what a Native American is supposed to be.

Of course, the first part flies right in the face of what's trying to be demonstrated. That these teams are something Native Americans have a direct problem with.

The second part is "slap you in the face" correlation does not mean causation. What has limited Native Americans, and kept their representation limited, is ****ing reservation life. It's blow your brains out bad.

So forgive me if I'm not taking the "whitey just don't understand" shit in stride.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 22, 2014 at 04:56 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2014, 07:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
"not homogenous in the slightest"
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Incorrect. This is 2014, not 1914, I believe that a great deal of your ignorance is showing, and you haven't a clue what life for a young NA is like. Hint: they aren't sitting around wearing feathers and smoking peace pipes all day.
I find it very interesting that you don't seem to know much and care less about the wide cultural gulfs between many of the NAs in North America.

You just did the equivalent of saying "Scots? Northern Irish? Meh it's 2014, they're all UK".
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2014, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I find it very interesting that you don't seem to know much and care less about the wide cultural gulfs between many of the NAs in North America.

You just did the equivalent of saying "Scots? Northern Irish? Meh it's 2014, they're all UK".
Back... pedal!! Obviously I'm more familiar with it than you, since you're now confusing entire regional populations and ethnicity. Seriously?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2014, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's an observation.

Energy to fight battles is limited, which ones are fought should be chosen wisely.
This is tedious. "It's too much work to be against the Redskins name."

I might point out they already got the trademark overturned.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2014, 02:46 PM
 
This interesting. The USPTO needs to scrub a lot more "offensive" trademarks.

“Redskins” Is Bad, But “Sl*t,” “Wh*re” And “Ni**a” Is OK To Trademark - Downtrend
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2014, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is tedious. "It's too much work to be against the Redskins name."

I might point out they already got the trademark overturned.
The whole point of "choose your battles" isn't about only picking the battles you can win, picking that kind of battle is called "not being an idiot". The point of the phrase is you can fight less battles than you can win, so fight the important ones.

Native Americans used up a bullet to bring awareness to a problem. Of all the problems Native Americans suffer at the moment, is this the one which deserves to be highlighted? The one which deserves money thrown at it, and expensive commercials?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2014, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The whole point of "choose your battles" isn't about only picking the battles you can win, picking that kind of battle is called "not being an idiot". The point of the phrase is you can fight less battles than you can win, so fight the important ones.

Native Americans used up a bullet to bring awareness to a problem. Of all the problems Native Americans suffer at the moment, is this the one which deserves to be highlighted? The one which deserves money thrown at it, and expensive commercials?
They need to do something with all that casino money.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2014, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Back... pedal!! Obviously I'm more familiar with it than you, since you're now confusing entire regional populations and ethnicity. Seriously?
Sorry, I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make here, Shaddim. Can you elaborate?

To be more clear, what I'm saying is that NAs are not really similar as between regional populations and/or tribes, other than the overarching fact that they identify as NAs.

They are very similar to European cultures in that respect. One could also try to say that they are therefore very familiar to Americans for the same reasons, but the overarching glue that binds most Americans together, no matter their widespread region of origin, is their love of American-ness.

That does apply to some NAs, but others are not so gung-ho about America the Country for various historical/political reasons.

Which is why I made the point about Scots and Northern Irish - ostensibly part of a greater whole, but they must be approached and dealt with individually.

NAs are really no different. It is a longstanding issue that minority cultures are treated in a monolithic manner, and judging by a review of this thread that is certainly what is happening in this case.
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Jun 24, 2014 at 08:47 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2014, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The whole point of "choose your battles" isn't about only picking the battles you can win, picking that kind of battle is called "not being an idiot". The point of the phrase is you can fight less battles than you can win, so fight the important ones.

Native Americans used up a bullet to bring awareness to a problem. Of all the problems Native Americans suffer at the moment, is this the one which deserves to be highlighted? The one which deserves money thrown at it, and expensive commercials?
I'm certainly not going to suggest this is one of the important battles - but surely you have to admit it is a hugely high-profile one.

Going back to your analogy, do you fight one of those less-important battles if it gets your particular cause noticed more than all the rest of your important battles, combined?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2014, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
This is the problem with everything right here. There's ALWAYS someone who's offended. The ones who are offended get the attention and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I agree that there is always someone who is offended, and that many times those people must get bent and/or suck it up.

I also think there is no place for a racial slur that ostensibly paints complex aboriginal societies by the colour of their skin to which at least some significant number of that population takes offense...and the solution to such being a re-branding of a popular sports team.

(I'm not gonna come out and say that they could use a re-brand...ya know, cause that's just mean. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2014, 09:36 AM
 
I'm mostly ignorant to the issues facing native americans, but I'm curious what could be easier to change than an NFL team name? I suspect the rest either involve social or institutional change, or government legislation. It's been around 12 months since the Redskins name became the a high-profile cause and it's already paying dividends.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2014, 10:16 AM
 
While "they" are at it, the Edmonton Eskimos are in need of a new name.
Eskimos name under fire
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Sorry, I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make here, Shaddim. Can you elaborate?

To be more clear, what I'm saying is that NAs are not really similar as between regional populations and/or tribes, other than the overarching fact that they identify as NAs.

They are very similar to European cultures in that respect. One could also try to say that they are therefore very familiar to Americans for the same reasons, but the overarching glue that binds most Americans together, no matter their widespread region of origin, is their love of American-ness.

That does apply to some NAs, but others are not so gung-ho about America the Country for various historical/political reasons.

Which is why I made the point about Scots and Northern Irish - ostensibly part of a greater whole, but they must be approached and dealt with individually.

NAs are really no different. It is a longstanding issue that minority cultures are treated in a monolithic manner, and judging by a review of this thread that is certainly what is happening in this case.
That just goes round and round in circles, it's impossible to follow your train of thought. You're hopping all over the place,
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 04:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm mostly ignorant to the issues facing native americans, but I'm curious what could be easier to change than an NFL team name? I suspect the rest either involve social or institutional change, or government legislation. It's been around 12 months since the Redskins name became the a high-profile cause and it's already paying dividends.
The name change doesn't fix or change anything for them, all it does is piss off millions of Washington fans.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The name change doesn't fix or change anything for them, all it does is piss off millions of Washington fans.
It will mean millions more for Snyder and the NFL with the sale of new team jerseys, etc.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The name change doesn't fix or change anything for them, all it does is piss off millions of Washington fans.
That, of course, has nothing to do with my conversation with subego

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It will mean millions more for Snyder and the NFL with the sale of new team jerseys, etc.
Ah, another Donald Sterling argument. "You're just giving Snyder more revenue!" And yet, he seems hellbent on the not changing the name. Which implies he values the name more highly than the revenue a change would bring in.

---

It struck me a while back that it seemed related to the argument that when Conan O' Brien lost the Tonight Show gig, he should be fine since he got $30 million big ones. There seems to be a segment of people who think having money somehow always makes up for losing the thing you wanted to have (The Tonight Show, The LA Clippers, The Redskins name). I'm not sure why this is.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That just goes round and round in circles, it's impossible to follow your train of thought. You're hopping all over the place,
Is that your way of just not replying? My post is exactly the same point I originally made, with elaboration. It is unclear what you are saying in your reply. Can you clarify?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Is that your way of just not replying? My post is exactly the same point I originally made, with elaboration. It is unclear what you are saying in your reply. Can you clarify?
No, it's my way of saying that your argument is insubstantial. Scots will tell you they're Scottish, the N. Irish will say they're Irish, a Cherokee native will proclaim they're Americans. NAs are homogeneous in the US, they're a root part of the country and have influenced our culture and way of life for centuries. The Redskin trademark is a dim link to their past, one that the majority embraced, evidenced by their own use of the term, until a few decided they didn't like it anymore. Well, gosh, that's just awful. Go forth and picket everyone else. Including your own Edmonton Eskimos (talk about a beam in your own eye...).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 01:02 PM
 
Okay, now I am totally confused.

You are suggesting that people picket a list of teams or mascots that are derived from indigenous/aboriginal peoples, even when the issue at hand is not that it is derived as such, but that it is derived from a racial slur for those native americans.

Furthermore, if you do not agree with the name change, why are you suggesting that the long-simmering name controversy of the Edmonton Eskimos is some sort of beam?

It seems that you are saying that all other instances of controversial names should be addressed before the NFL team has to do anything. That is a total red herring of an argument.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 01:21 PM
 
You can't single out one, that's been widely accepted for generations, without taking in the breadth of all the others. I brought up the Eskis because it's hypocritical to rage about the Redskins when a team with an even more controversial name is in your backyard, or is that not as important as pitching and moaning over a US organization? Redskins is a mascot representing a people who don't even exist anymore, within a modern context, while the Inuit...

[waits to see if it sinks in]
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You can't single out one, that's been widely accepted for generations, without taking in the breadth of all the others.
You and others in this thread are consistently missing the point outlined in the OP. The issue is not (at least so far) framed as attempting to eliminate the name because it is related to NAs. It has been discussed in this thread that there are alternate names that could serve to emphasize a NA connection without using a word that at least one significant tribe still feels is racially charged and demeaning.

I brought up the Eskis because it's hypocritical to rage about the Redskins when a team with an even more controversial name is in your backyard, or is that not as important as pitching and moaning over a US organization?
Firstly, you seem not to understand the term "hypocritical". I would fully support a name change of the Edmonton Eskimos and feel it is likely to happen in the future. How is it in any way hypocritical that I also support a name change of the NFL team...? I know you're smarter than this.

Secondly, your geography needs some tweaking. You are aware that Canada is a pretty large place, right? Edmonton is a 4000-mile drive away from me - Washington less than 1900. Neither exactly qualify as my backyard though....
Redskins is a mascot representing a people who don't even exist anymore, within a modern context, while the Inuit...
A people who don't even exist anymore?

I suppose you have already informed the Oneida Indian Nation that their concerns should be assuaged by the fact that they do not exist?

I refuse to think that you actually believe that native americans/aboriginals do not exist any longer within a modern context? Because...I mean, rightly or wrongly, that is absolutely false.

[waits to see if it sinks in]
Is this supposed to mean that I simply have to accept what you're writing without pointing out the numerous flaws and inconsistencies?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, it's my way of saying that your argument is insubstantial. Scots will tell you they're Scottish, the N. Irish will say they're Irish, a Cherokee native will proclaim they're Americans.
It's a factual statement. They are. But it does not always mean the same as if you or some other American said it, especially depending on the NA.

You continue to refer to Cherokees - because of course, I understand that is your bloodline. But for many NAs, it is no different than saying "Scot first, UKer second".

NAs are homogeneous in the US,
I feel you are absolutely incorrect in this statement, and basic cultural research will back me up here. You keep repeating it, but it is false.

they're a root part of the country and have influenced our culture and way of life for centuries.
Of course they have. And just like here Canada, you also did your best to eradicate, marginalize, steal from, and sideline as much as possible for a couple hundred consecutive years. Which seems to be perfectly illustrated when some of them say "Oh, by the way...we still think this is pretty offensive", your response is apparently "no it's not, **** off, I like my football team named this way".

The Redskin trademark is a dim link to their past, one that the majority embraced, evidenced by their own use of the term, until a few decided they didn't like it anymore. Well, gosh, that's just awful.
Interesting use of the term "Redskin trademark". However dim a link you may consider it, it is evidently still a link and not one that is appreciated by at least one significant tribe.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2014, 04:28 PM
 
It isn't false, they're a part of the US as a whole, an integral one, and no matter what you think otherwise, the Redskin symbol/trademark doesn't have anything more to do with modern NAs than it did WRT Jackie Chan when he put on a headdress in Shanghai Noon. Those few in the modern tribes can grouse all they want, but it doesn't mean that anyone has to cower and do their bidding. Frankly, they can just stick it. So, bleh. This subject has gotten boring and I'm tired of it now, wake me when they want to discuss something important, like reservation alcoholism, suicide rates, or drug trafficking.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2014, 12:54 PM
 
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 10:33 AM
 
“Caucasians” t-shirts are hot sellers on Canadian Indian reservations | HardballTalk
A hot fashion item this summer on Ontario First Nations’ reserves is a T-shirt with the lettering “Caucasians” and the grinning logo of Chief Wahoo, the much-derided mascot of the Cleveland Indians major league baseball team . . . T-shirt maker Brian Kirby of Shelf Life Clothing in Cleveland said the “Caucasians” shirt has been his most popular seller since he began making them in 2007, but interest “skyrocketed” after the Deejay NDN controversy, especially after the story hit Reddit and Facebook.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 12:41 PM
 
Suits me, I have a t-shirt that says "Honkey", it's one of my favorites. My PA got it for me for my b-day. (yeah, she's black)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 01:46 PM
 
Cafe express has been selling t shirts for awhile.

¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 03:46 PM
 
Nothing groundbreaking, but worth a mention
Mike Carey, longtime NFL referee, avoided Washington’s games because of the name - The Washington Post
Told a search of game logs dating back as far as 1999, his fourth year in the league, revealed Carey had not worked a preseason or regular season home or away Washington game since the opening week of the 2006 season, he smiled coyly, like a man whose cover had finally been blown.

Pausing for eight full seconds, he finally spoke:

“The league respectfully honored my request not to officiate Washington,” Carey said. “It happened sometime after I refereed their playoff game in 2006, I think.”

For almost all of the final eight seasons and 146 games of Carey’s career, the first African American referee to work a Super Bowl — the official named with Ed Hochuli as the best in the game in a 2008 ESPN poll of coaches — essentially told his employers his desire for a mutually respectful society was so jeopardized by Washington’s team name that he could not bring himself to officiate the games of owner Daniel Snyder’s team.

“It just became clear to me that to be in the middle of the field, where something disrespectful is happening, was probably not the best thing for me,” Carey said.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2