Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 89
  1. #51
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    And what if the majority of Native Americans are not opposed to a team named the Redskins? Society gets to speak for the Native Americans?
    You're confusing apathy with support.

    Do you think a majority of Native Americans believe the name should be kept?

  2. #52
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    You're confusing apathy with support.

    Do you think a majority of Native Americans believe the name should be kept?
    I honestly don't know, the question I posed was hypothetical. Last poll (some flaws) taken didn't show much support at all for a name change.

  3. #53
    The D.R.A. Drachen's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    11,214
    I support the rights of the native Americans to fight the name, and if they truly find it offensive, I hope that they get it changed. I don't, however, support the TM being taken.

  4. #54
    Veteran HI-FI's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Post Count
    13,358
    I actually could care less about this issue. It suddenly took on great importance in the past few years.
    that's what has bothered me, how it's become this meme across DC and the media. the vast majority of people, including most native americans apparently, don't give a or find it offensive. I wonder if this is something the administration has cooked up to deflect from various other ups and scandals.

  5. #55
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I ignored nothing. I simply pointed out there were many Native Americans who do not take offense.

    And why am I not surprised Lumpy ignores the Native Americans who are supportive of the name?

    A simple google search will reveal this.

    http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-nativ...ous-1445909360

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/

    http://www.redskins.com/news-and-eve...d-18d7fb768bb7

    http://go.bloomberg.com/political-ca...rican-support/

    http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/No...rgers-calkins/

    http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...ntroversy-9395
    Uncle Tom thought slavery was cool too. That is besides the point. They are called minority rights for a reason.

    And yes you ignored them as you do not even consider their existence in your argument. Your argument basically is that because some American Indians are alright with the name then it makes it okay. Now you think human rights are up for a vote when called on it.

    i will also point out that you should read the entirety of the articles you cite instead of regurgitating your google search. For example, the cbs article talks of your self selected survey but it goes on to talk about how black people call each other and it being cool yet the name still being offensive as well the idiocy of considering the native american community as monolithic when in fact it is radically diverse tribes that make up its cons uents. spurminator had another one pointed out above.

    this is the behavior of a sophist. unfortunately for you, your sophistry comes with what we can expect from you: lazy and dumb.

    Have a ed day, bag.

  6. #56
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,152
    The timing of this mess is interesting. (Donald Sterling?)

    Imo the name carries far more weight because of the history of Native Americans. The Fighting Irish, the Buffalo Bills... their history is not one of a real tragedy in this country. How it is decided what type of history makes a mascot offensive is difficult, but clear for me in this case.

    Blue and Red DEVILS

    Christians unite... rise up.

  7. #57
    Veteran cd021's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    9,818
    Proof please?

    None of the res guys I grew up with give two s. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two s either.

    Next up:
    Kansas City Chiefs
    Cleveland Indians
    Cleveland Browns
    Atlanta Braves
    The Browns were named after a person.

  8. #58
    Deandre Jordan Sucks m>s's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Post Count
    9,768
    you're the true racist here buddy, i'm just standing up for my people apparently you have a problem with that

  9. #59
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Actually, I don't care that you are a ing moron racist, I do care that you waste valuable oxygen that those of us that are capable of thinking could put to better use.

    And oh, you are a brave tough guy anonymously on the internet. Congrats, for being as they say in prison a punk. I am guessing that you had the same experience as Edward Norton did in American History X, problem was you enjoyed it, and now you are ashamed for finally having to acknowledge that you love the big black .
    Seems to me it's you who likes to suck .

    definition: bonnerific:

    An adjective that describes an action that a woman does to a man that will most likely give him a long lasting erection

  10. #60
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Sure, most Native Americans don't sit around obsessing about the Redskins name, and most of them don't really have the time or resources to fight it. Does that mean we should fight to keep it around when there is a good number of others who ARE bothered by it?

    A lot of black folks didn't think segregation was a big deal and weren't really all that interested in fighting it. I would guess most black people didn't really do anything to fight it. Didn't mean it was ok.

    It's not about some kind of popular vote. Sometimes society decides that certain things are beneath them and they want to be better.
    Two completely different things here, and the PR surrounding an NFL franchise actually IS some kind of popular vote. In fact, anything driven by "this offends me" is just that, some kind of popular vote. I mean otherwise where does it end? Where is the magic number of people offended by something that makes it offensive? Segregation was a legal issue where the cons ution was violated. This is not. Comparing them doesn't make much sense, IMO.

  11. #61
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    Two completely different things here, and the PR surrounding an NFL franchise actually IS some kind of popular vote. In fact, anything driven by "this offends me" is just that, some kind of popular vote. I mean otherwise where does it end? Where is the magic number of people offended by something that makes it offensive? Segregation was a legal issue where the cons ution was violated. This is not. Comparing them doesn't make much sense, IMO.
    Sure, I don't think the two examples are anywhere close to each other in importance, and I certainly don't think Washington should be banned from using the name. But I also don't think the patent office should make decisions like this based on an arbitrary majority opinion.

    Perhaps a better comparison... In 1940 a football team could have probably gotten by calling themselves the Minstrels and having a blackface mascot without a lot of public outcry (or a majority opinion against it) but ideally that wouldn't matter.

    Like I said, sometimes society realizes they're better than this. The "line" evolves but in situations as trivial as a sports team's mascot, that's not really a bad thing. It's 2014 and we are above calling a football team The Redskins when the only arguments in favor of it are tradition and nostalgia. The patent office shouldn't have even had to say anything about it.

    There's no magic number and there doesn't need to be, because these will always be argued on a case by case basis. It's not a slippery slope that's somehow going to lead to the unstoppable sanitization of our culture from everything remotely offensive to every small group of people. Regardless of what happens with Washington's football team's name, the next time a controversy like this arises, we're going to argue about it for weeks on end then as well. And the next, and the next.

  12. #62
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Two completely different things here, and the PR surrounding an NFL franchise actually IS some kind of popular vote. In fact, anything driven by "this offends me" is just that, some kind of popular vote. I mean otherwise where does it end? Where is the magic number of people offended by something that makes it offensive? Segregation was a legal issue where the cons ution was violated. This is not. Comparing them doesn't make much sense, IMO.
    Segregation invokes the equal protection clause but different interpretations carry here. There are all sorts of statutes prohibiting racially derogatory language. The patent office used one such statute to reject their trademark.

    And the cons ution was reinterpreted from separate but equal meeting 14th to it not being the case in brown vs topeka. You could make the argument that took place because popular opinion. A true cynic would say that there are no self evident inalienable rights and that any and all are granted by popular consent.

    It ends where the courts ultimately deem it to end. That is how things work in this country. The slippery slope argument is a nice fear mongering tactic.

  13. #63
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Sure, I don't think the two examples are anywhere close to each other in importance, and I certainly don't think Washington should be banned from using the name. But I also don't think the patent office should make decisions like this based on an arbitrary majority opinion.

    Perhaps a better comparison... In 1940 a football team could have probably gotten by calling themselves the Minstrels and having a blackface mascot without a lot of public outcry (or a majority opinion against it) but ideally that wouldn't matter.

    Like I said, sometimes society realizes they're better than this. The "line" evolves but in situations as trivial as a sports team's mascot, that's not really a bad thing. It's 2014 and we are above calling a football team The Redskins when the only arguments in favor of it are tradition and nostalgia. The patent office shouldn't have even had to say anything about it.

    There's no magic number and there doesn't need to be, because these will always be argued on a case by case basis. It's not a slippery slope that's somehow going to lead to the unstoppable sanitization of our culture from everything remotely offensive to every small group of people. Regardless of what happens with Washington's football team's name, the next time a controversy like this arises, we're going to argue about it for weeks on end then as well. And the next, and the next.
    More than the slippery slope, I'm arguing the ambiguity of "society deciding its better". I don't think somehow everything that offends someone is going to be an issue for the patent office because there has to be someone pushing it first. I'm arguing that this isn't that at all but rather small groups of people making an issue out of something that pretty much no one really cares about.

    For instance, if in some magic way it was possible to say for certain the NFL would force the Redskins to change their name if 50% of fans would boycott the NFL for year do you think it would happen? Thats an easy no. In fact, the vast majority of those offended won't boycott the NFL for a minute. They'll express their offense when it requires nothing more than a post on an internet message board. And they'll justify it by pointing to it being a Daniel Snyder issues and compartmentalize it to the franchise when the reality is that the NFL and every other owner makes a profit on that name just like Snyder.

    My viewpoint is definitely swayed by a couple of things. First, as most of you know, I'm a Redskins fan. Although I have no tie to the name and really wouldn't really care if they changed it, I am tired of this stupid debate. Second, I live in the midst of what is likely the highest concentration of reservations/pueblos in the Nation. Guess who wears a lot of that Redskin gear? I find it particularly patronizing when a bunch of white people are trying to tell Natives what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Now, of course there Natives who are offended by it but this is definitely an issue that has been built on the back of White America and not Native America.

    Anyway, maybe sometimes society does decide it is better. Maybe that'll come after the Navajo nation stops using the Redskin as a mascot or after people actually care more about it than they do right now.

  14. #64
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    More than the slippery slope, I'm arguing the ambiguity of "society deciding its better". I don't think somehow everything that offends someone is going to be an issue for the patent office because there has to be someone pushing it first. I'm arguing that this isn't that at all but rather small groups of people making an issue out of something that pretty much no one really cares about.

    For instance, if in some magic way it was possible to say for certain the NFL would force the Redskins to change their name if 50% of fans would boycott the NFL for year do you think it would happen? Thats an easy no. In fact, the vast majority of those offended won't boycott the NFL for a minute. They'll express their offense when it requires nothing more than a post on an internet message board. And they'll justify it by pointing to it being a Daniel Snyder issues and compartmentalize it to the franchise when the reality is that the NFL and every other owner makes a profit on that name just like Snyder.

    My viewpoint is definitely swayed by a couple of things. First, as most of you know, I'm a Redskins fan. Although I have no tie to the name and really wouldn't really care if they changed it, I am tired of this stupid debate. Second, I live in the midst of what is likely the highest concentration of reservations/pueblos in the Nation. Guess who wears a lot of that Redskin gear? I find it particularly patronizing when a bunch of white people are trying to tell Natives what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Now, of course there Natives who are offended by it but this is definitely an issue that has been built on the back of White America and not Native America.

    Anyway, maybe sometimes society does decide it is better. Maybe that'll come after the Navajo nation stops using the Redskin as a mascot or after people actually care more about it than they do right now.

    Uncle Tom thought slavery was cool too. That is besides the point. They are called minority rights for a reason.

    And yes you ignored them as you do not even consider their existence in your argument. Your argument basically is that because some American Indians are alright with the name then it makes it okay. Now you think human rights are up for a vote when called on it.

    i will also point out that you should read the entirety of the articles you cite instead of regurgitating your google search. For example, the cbs article talks of your self selected survey but it goes on to talk about how black people call each other and it being cool yet the name still being offensive as well the idiocy of considering the native american community as monolithic when in fact it is radically diverse tribes that make up its cons uents. spurminator had another one pointed out above.

    this is the behavior of a sophist. unfortunately for you, your sophistry comes with what we can expect from you: lazy and dumb.

    Have a ed day, bag.

  15. #65
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    And off we go!

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-...ief-wahoo-logo

    A Native American group is planning to file a $9 billion federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians and their "offensive" Chief Wahoo logo, according to CBS Cleveland. The suit is expected to be filed next month.
    Here's more from CBS Cleveland:
    Robert Roche, a Chiricahua Apache and director of the American Indian Education Center, is planning to file a federal lawsuit in late July against the Cleveland Indians organization. Roche, who is also the leader of the group People Not Mascots, says the lawsuit will challenge that the team's name and Chief Wahoo logo are racist.
    “We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering,” Roche told WEWS-TV. “It's been offensive since day one. We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”
    Local supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo say it is only a small minority of people who are offended by the logo.
    “If just a small amount of people are against it, than I think you're doing a disservice to people that like it,” Bob Rosen, president of the Wahoo Club, tells WEWS. He added that thousands of Indians fans embrace Chief Wahoo as a loyal and friendly symbol.
    “I'm not insensitive to the issue, but our 1,650 members of the Wahoo Club, anytime we have a Wahoo Club item they but it up they love it,” Rosen said. “Can you imagine the baseball team in this city not being called the Cleveland Indians? I can't picture that.”
    The Indians have been gradually phasing out the Chief Wahoo logo over the last few years, replacing it with the red block letter "C" logo.
    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office stripped the NFL's Washington Redskins of its trademark last week and called the team name a "racial slur." The Redskins are appealing the landmark ruling. People Not Mascots is looking for similar action against the Indians

  16. #66
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    These groups should keep on going and sue the government for the Declaration of Independence's use of the word Savages when referencing Native Americans.

  17. #67
    2nd Verse Same as the 1st Oh, Gee!!'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Post Count
    8,869
    Proof please?

    None of the res guys I grew up with give two s. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two s either.

    Next up:
    Kansas City Chiefs
    Cleveland Indians
    Cleveland Browns
    Atlanta Braves
    I think the Browns are named after the original coach, Paul Brown. I doubt Native Americans are upset about that one.

  18. #68
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    And off we go!

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-...ief-wahoo-logo

    A Native American group is planning to file a $9 billion federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians and their "offensive" Chief Wahoo logo, according to CBS Cleveland. The suit is expected to be filed next month.
    Here's more from CBS Cleveland:
    Robert Roche, a Chiricahua Apache and director of the American Indian Education Center, is planning to file a federal lawsuit in late July against the Cleveland Indians organization. Roche, who is also the leader of the group People Not Mascots, says the lawsuit will challenge that the team's name and Chief Wahoo logo are racist.
    “We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering,” Roche told WEWS-TV. “It's been offensive since day one. We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”
    Local supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo say it is only a small minority of people who are offended by the logo.
    “If just a small amount of people are against it, than I think you're doing a disservice to people that like it,” Bob Rosen, president of the Wahoo Club, tells WEWS. He added that thousands of Indians fans embrace Chief Wahoo as a loyal and friendly symbol.
    “I'm not insensitive to the issue, but our 1,650 members of the Wahoo Club, anytime we have a Wahoo Club item they but it up they love it,” Rosen said. “Can you imagine the baseball team in this city not being called the Cleveland Indians? I can't picture that.”
    The Indians have been gradually phasing out the Chief Wahoo logo over the last few years, replacing it with the red block letter "C" logo.
    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office stripped the NFL's Washington Redskins of its trademark last week and called the team name a "racial slur." The Redskins are appealing the landmark ruling. People Not Mascots is looking for similar action against the Indians
    I doubt that lawsuit has a snowballs chance in but if they want to waste money on legal fees then by all means. Of course I'm not a lawyer so what the do I know. I could be totally wrong.

  19. #69
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I find it particularly patronizing when a bunch of white people are trying to tell Natives what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Now, of course there Natives who are offended by it but this is definitely an issue that has been built on the back of White America and not Native America.

    Anyway, maybe sometimes society does decide it is better. Maybe that'll come after the Navajo nation stops using the Redskin as a mascot or after people actually care more about it than they do right now.
    i find it particularly patronizing that you think that i am white. Cool story too. Too bad tribal councils are the groups that are bringing suit.

    Now, the National Congress of American Indians has joined in the opposition, issuing a video that consists of leaders from seven different tribes: Cathy Abramson, Councilmember, Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians; Al Goozmer, President, Tyonek Native Village of Alaska; Brian Cladoosby, Chairman, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and President, NCAI; Edwina Butler Wolfe, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Leander McDonald, Tribal Chairman, Spirit Lake Tribe; Dennis Welsh, Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes; Candace Bossard, Councilmember, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.
    The trademark suit was brought by native americans as well.

  20. #70
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    I never called you white, but OK. Sure, some tribal groups are bringing suits but you're being completely dishonest if you say this is an issue driven by Native Americans.

  21. #71
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I never called you white, but OK. Sure, some tribal groups are bringing suits but you're being completely dishonest if you say this is an issue driven by Native Americans.
    So white people are forcing/coercing/magicing the National Congress of American Indians amongst other Indian leadership to pursue these various suits.

    That's nice.

    When I see actions taken it is by Indians. Who are these 'white' people?

  22. #72
    Lab Animal Capt Bringdown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    11,443

  23. #73
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    'Daily Show' Didn't Air Even More Intense Redskins Tailgate Footage

    Migizi Pensoneau, one of three members of a Native American comedy group called the 1491s who appeared in the segment, wrote about his experience during the taping for a piece published Friday in the Missoula Independent. Pensoneau revealed that the day after the group of Native Americans confronted the panel of Redskins loyalists, the 'Daily Show' taped he and his fellow comedians wandering around a tailgate at Fed Ex Field on game day -- and by his account, they weren't well received by those fans either.

    Pensoneau wrote that he "actually was afraid for my life" during the hour-long taping. He recounted being mocked and threatened, including by a blonde woman who told him

    "I'll ing cut you" because he was wearing a T-shirt that read "Caucasians."

    Here's what Pensoneau says went down:

    I’m a big dude—6’1”, and a lotta meat on the bones. But a blonde little wisp of a girl completely freaked me out as I waited in line for the bathroom. “Is that shirt supposed to be funny?” she asked motioning to my satirical “Caucasians” T-shirt. And then she said, “I’ll ing cut you.” Actually, she didn’t scare me so much as the wannabe linebackers standing behind her who looked like they wanted to make good on her threat.

    He went on to describe a man blowing cigar smoke in his face and other fans yelling at him to "go the home" and "Thanks for letting us use your name!"


    One of the Redskins fans who participated in the 'Daily Show' panel, Kelli O'Dell, had told the Washington Post earlier this week that she called the police after the taping because she felt similarly threatened by the Native American activists.


    "The Native Americans accused me of things that were so wrong," she told the newspaper. "I felt in danger. I didn’t consent to that. I am going to be defamed.”


    Pensoneau touched on the group's interaction with O'Dell in his piece, describing it as "intense" but not "mean-spirited:"

    As some of the anti-mascot activists started in passionately on the issue, pro-mascot panelist Kelli O’Dell, who was previously employed by the Washington Redskins and whose Internet presence is devoted to her support of the team and mascot, started to cry. My ever-dapper 1491s colleague, Bobby Wilson, offered her his own handkerchief. It was an intense situation, but never mean-spirited. O’Dell, though, started to accuse us of ambushing and lying and “how dare you.”

    Overall, it appears filming the 'Daily Show' segment wasn't a fully enjoyable experience for either side of the Redskins naming debate.


    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29

    You Stay Classy, NFL fanatics, sounds like a bunch of Repug/tea bagger voters.





  24. #74
    Banned
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    323
    i find it particularly patronizing that you think that i am white. Cool story too. Too bad tribal councils are the groups that are bringing suit.



    The trademark suit was brought by native americans as well.
    Are you a gook?

  25. #75
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    2,941
    IMO it would be fine to keep the indian, the logo isnt offensive but change the name to a respectful one (like Braves, they dont get nearly as much flak because of this), I think that would be legal and fair. the "white" (though the irish were/always have been a minority themselves) mascots are named flatteringly, redskin is a slur. I grew up in DC and I always considered it offensive.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •