Redskins Name Change

• sleeper

  

  Laley23;1527278 wrote:Ive never understood what is offensive about it?
  
  So the mascots used in sports are sometimes cartooned a bit...who cares? They wouldnt be using your name as a mascot if they didnt think you were "tough, scary, hard working, etc". Its much more of a compliment to these tribes and other groups than discriminatory.
  
  No one in sports is poking fun at the tribes. They arent making fun of their existence. They arent making fun of the way you live or lived. Its literally because its a cartooned picture or the name is slang??? Is that it? Would all the natives be happy if the Indians changed Chief Wahoo to a dark brown and didnt have the big eyes and smile? Just a normal drawing of an "indian"? Would that magically make it all better? Cause that is the only thing they are doing that is considered offensive...

  Again, its a money grab. No one is sitting at home crying about the mascot or the team name; they just simply are exploiting it as "offensive" and therefore rent seeking a claim on future earnings of the organization that is "offending". If the NFL was a $10M a year business, no one would even bother, but $8-10 billion, hell I may consider filing suit against the Cowboys for depicting white people as renegade slackjawed animals.
• sleeper

  

  Gblock;1527326 wrote:as usual you are the only one complaining..we get it..it sucks to be white..poor white people...11 posts later no one cares move on. you gotta get over it dude and try to find some joy in life

  I don't gain any additional benefit from being white. I just am. I'm proud of my skin color and think minorities that are offended by their own skin color should move back to Africa or wherever they came from. I don't understand the incessant need to whine and complain about how so and so group is offensive and therefore we demand it be changed; and if you don't change you are racist. This type of race baiting and rent seeking by minorities needs to stop, otherwise they will continute to self-handicap themselves by needed benefits solely because they cannot compete with white people on any scale; which to me signals an inferior race. If I'm black, I go campaign against affirmative action, the NAACP, and any group that tries to exploit and blackmail honest organizations because I would understand how these are negatively destroying any chance for me to just be a black man; rather than a poor little minority who constantly needs a leg up.
  
  One can dream I suppose ~ MLK
• Gblock

  sleeper;1527357 wrote:I don't gain any additional benefit from being white. I just am. I'm proud of my skin color and think minorities that are offended by their own skin color should move back to Africa or wherever they came from. I don't understand the incessant need to whine and complain about how so and so group is offensive and therefore we demand it be changed; and if you don't change you are racist. This type of race baiting and rent seeking by minorities needs to stop, otherwise they will continute to self-handicap themselves by needed benefits solely because they cannot compete with white people on any scale; which to me signals an inferior race. If I'm black, I go campaign against affirmative action, the NAACP, and any group that tries to exploit and blackmail honest organizations because I would understand how these are negatively destroying any chance for me to just be a black man; rather than a poor little minority who constantly needs a leg up.
  
  One can dream I suppose ~ MLK

  but you have made this exact same post..at least 50 times...beating a dead horse
• sleeper

  

  Gblock;1527362 wrote:but you have made this exact same post..at least 50 times...beating a dead horse

  Typically when no counter argument is brought forth I continue to post the exact same things until someone is brave enough to stand toe to toe with me and debate. Unfortunately, the only one ever ballsy enough to do so is banned indefinitely(isadore).
  
  I get a lot of criticism especially on religious threads but its not worth my while to come up with any new content when simply going directly to the point is all you need. I mean, if you can't prove god is real or religions are based on fact; why even bother discussing anything more? If someone says "Religious groups object to birth control because the Pope said so" I can simply counter with "Well since the Pope is irrelevant and birth control is a benefit to society, these religious groups should be stripped of their right to vote for being so ignorant." I mean does anyone really want to debate whether birth control should be banned? If so, start another thread.
• OSH

  

  HitsRus;1527293 wrote:thank you for proving my point about the real reason that this is an issue....that this group has a political ax to grind and it's a great way to accomplish their agenda.
  
  I am exactly right when I say that some liberal college professor filled your head with guilt.

  Shouldn't a group of Native Americans "have an ax to grind?" They are tired of being depicted of red-faced, smiling, tomahawk-wielding, scalpers. They are not that. It's racial stereotypes and/or profiling (however you want to look at it). So...they (Native Americans and their allies) should have an agenda they are trying to accomplish. It's the same agenda that aided the Jews during the Holocaust. It's the same agenda that abolished slavery. During those times, the respective people groups faced the same type of imagery and stereotypes that still takes place in America towards Native Americans.
  
  When slavery was abolished, this same type of mentality was the pro-slavery group..."this group just has a political ax to grind" or "those people are just trying to accomplish their agenda." Well YEAH! Those people saw the discrimination and heinousness of slavery. Granted, the Native American imagery isn't as bad as slavery, but they are still being depicted how they shouldn't be.
  
  No other people group has went through what they have and are being depicted as mascots. Vikings weren't slaughtered from their land. Fighting Irish (and their leprechaun mascots) hunted for bounty.
  
  And no...there was absolutely no liberal college professor that filled my head with guilt. I can think for myself. Good job "profiling."
• sleeper

  

  OSH;1527379 wrote:Shouldn't a group of Native Americans "have an ax to grind?" They are tired of being depicted of red-faced, smiling, tomahawk-wielding, scalpers. They are not that. It's racial stereotypes and/or profiling (however you want to look at it). So...they (Native Americans and their allies) should have an agenda they are trying to accomplish. It's the same agenda that aided the Jews during the Holocaust. It's the same agenda that abolished slavery. During those times, the respective people groups faced the same type of imagery and stereotypes that still takes place in America towards Native Americans.
  
  When slavery was abolished, this same type of mentality was the pro-slavery group..."this group just has a political ax to grind" or "those people are just trying to accomplish their agenda." Well YEAH! Those people saw the discrimination and heinousness of slavery. Granted, the Native American imagery isn't as bad as slavery, but they are still being depicted how they shouldn't be.
  
  No other people group has went through what they have and are being depicted as mascots. Vikings weren't slaughtered from their land. Fighting Irish (and their leprechaun mascots) hunted for bounty.
  
  And no...there was absolutely no liberal college professor that filled my head with guilt. I can think for myself. Good job "profiling."

  Right because the first thing I think of when I look at the Indians mascot is the current day Native Americans. Grow up.
• Mohican00

  

  sleeper;1527373 wrote:I get a lot of criticism especially on religious threads but its not worth my while to come up with any new content when simply going directly to the point is all you need.

  Why are you even arguing religion? Aren't you an adult?
  
  That's shit edgy teenagers do
• Gblock

  i think mohican00 should have to change his name :RpS_w00t:
• OSH

  

  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/timeline-history-offensive-sports-mascots-redskins-snyder
• vdubb96

  

  Gblock;1527399 wrote:i think mohican00 should have to change his name :RpS_w00t:

  reps!
• Mohican00

  

  Gblock;1527399 wrote:i think mohican00 should have to change his name :RpS_w00t:

  ha, Warrior00
  
  
• WebFire

  Gblock;1527326 wrote:you gotta get over it dude and try to find some joy in life

  So do people who complain about sport mascots.
• Heretic

  

  HitsRus;1527293 wrote:I am a clown when I say that some liberal college professor filled your head with guilt.

  A bit more accurate, Mr. Politard.
• I Wear Pants

  thavoice;1526715 wrote:Didnt hawaii have to change their name away from Rainbows?

  They're actually going back to rainbow warriors again IIRC.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  justincredible;1526546 wrote:I think Dan Snyder should be free to do as he pleases with the name of the team.

  So if Dan Snyder pleases to name his team "The Washington N*ggers" you think he should be free to do so?
• sleeper

  

  Scarlet_Buckeye;1527581 wrote:So if Dan Snyder pleases to name his team "The Washington N*ggers" you think he should be free to do so?

  Absolutely. It's his team. Would he be able to convince people to watch or play for team? Maybe in the SEC..
• HitsRus

  

  while the US government continues to systematically marginalize them through ongoing policies that ignore their inherent sovereignty and Indigenous rights to the land.

  
  Half the world's problems come from the misguided notion that people have rights to land just because their ancestors lived on them 500 or more years ago.....But as long as you can guilty Westerners into thinking that because their great great great grandaddy took the land from your great great great grandaddy....they owe you something.
  

  Shouldn't a group of Native Americans "have an ax to grind?"

  That's up to them depending on how they are actually being harmed by the U.S. Government, but it is important that you realize that cartoon characters aren't really harmful....and I don't care if you are talking about Wahoo, Hagar the Horrible, or pugilistic Irishmen....unless of course, you are going to use them as a weapon politically.
  Some Native American activists do exactly that, manipulating this into a racist issue. Nobody believes that Native Americans today are tomahawk wielding savages, or that Scandanavians are pillaging, plundering raiders.
  
  Incidentally, the Mother Jones article you cite, shows that the dislike for sports teams named after Native Americans is hardly universal among the tribes or of those of that descent.
• OSH

  

  HitsRus;1527598 wrote:Half the world's problems come from the misguided notion that people have rights to land just because their ancestors lived on them 500 or more years ago.....But as long as you can guilty Westerners into thinking that because their great great great grandaddy took the land from your great great great grandaddy....they owe you something.
  
  That's up to them depending on how they are actually being harmed by the U.S. Government, but it is important that you realize that cartoon characters aren't really harmful....and I don't care if you are talking about Wahoo, Hagar the Horrible, or pugilistic Irishmen....unless of course, you are going to use them as a weapon politically.
  Some Native American activists do exactly that, manipulating this into a racist issue. Nobody believes that Native Americans today are tomahawk wielding savages, or that Scandanavians are pillaging, plundering raiders.
  
  Incidentally, the Mother Jones article you cite, shows that the dislike for sports teams named after Native Americans is hardly universal among the tribes or of those of that descent.

  It doesn't matter if dislike of the Native American names/mascots/symbolism/etc. is universal or not. There are thousands of people that are against it. The article also isn't necessarily about the "who dislikes" but rather a historical evidence of racist names. The fact is, there ARE people against it and they ARE Native Americans. There doesn't need to be 100% against it...
  
  Cartoon caricatures CAN be harmful. That's exactly what the Nazis used against Jewish people. That's exactly what existed during slavery days. It continues to be stereotypical AND derogatory. Native Americans do not look like the Washington football mascot. Native Americans do not look like the Cleveland Baseball Club mascot. It is very derogatory to depict them as such.
  
  Times change. People get smarter. There's a reason why there isn't slavery. There's a reason why certain people groups aren't discriminated against. There's a reason why we don't have these:
  
• sleeper

  

  OSH if we catered to every sob story that cried about how they are being offended we'd spend our time doing nothing else. Being offended grants you no rights or special privileges which is something lost on the rent seekers like the Native Americans and minorities. Again, nowhere in the constitution do we defend the rights of those who are offended and we sure as shit aren't going to start now with worthless trash like Native Americans(note: I only think this about Native Americans given the evidence presented in this thread. If Native Americans want to shed this negative light, please give up all benefits granted to you because you are a Native American and then I will change my perspective).
• sleeper

  

  Native Americans do not look like the Washington football mascot.

  
  
  Then what's the problem? This team is clearly not representing Native Americans but Redskins. If Redskins are so derogatory and they are not what is being displayed, then they have no beef.
  
  Logic fail.
• WebFire

  Then why is Yankees allowed? It is a derogatory name.
• Mohican00

  

  WebFire;1527651 wrote:Then why is Yankees allowed? It is a derogatory name.

  white privilege
• OSH

  

  WebFire;1527651 wrote:Then why is Yankees allowed? It is a derogatory name.

  I guess they do have a pretty controversial depiction of the people group...
  
  
• GOONx19

  

  OSH;1527781 wrote:I guess they do have a pretty controversial depiction of the people group...
  
  

  I don't think the Redskins logo is any more offensive than the FSU logo. But I guess if the Seminoles didn't get any money out of the deal, they would probably cry racist, too.
• OSH

  

  GOONx19;1527784 wrote:I don't think the Redskins logo is any more offensive than the FSU logo. But I guess if the Seminoles didn't get any money out of the deal, they would probably cry racist, too.

  They keep it (just like University of Utah) because they work with the tribes. I am sure there are some things that could change about it...but since the Seminoles gave their blessing it's fine.
  
  But, Seminoles and Utes are actual tribes. There is no tribe called "redskins." It is a derogatory term. Seminoles and Utes are not derogatory terms. Calling Native Americans "braves," "warriors," "chiefs," and the like are stereotypical terms that many want to get away from. Native Americans are just regular people and don't need to be used as mascots.
  
  I'm not even sure how (if any or much) money is given by Florida State or Utah to their respective tribes.