Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long overdue. Some people might wail at political correctness gone mad, but I can guarantee that if the original name had been Washington N*****s, then something would have been done about it a long time ago.

Man are you going to eat some crow when you find out what they are changing the name to. =P

Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

As a consequence does that not make this whole thing yet another example of people being outraged on other people's behalf, when the group who actually have the right to be upset are ambivalent?

Of course, if sufficient numbers of Native Americans ARE offended then fair enough, otherwise, perhaps the liberal-minded people who are likely stirring this up can find something more worthy to pursue?

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

As a consequence does that not make this whole thing yet another example of people being outraged on other people's behalf, when the group who actually have the right to be upset are ambivalent?

Of course, if sufficient numbers of Native Americans ARE offended then fair enough, otherwise, perhaps the liberal-minded people who are likely stirring this up can find something more worthy to pursue?

There was a case down in Florida over the same thing for the Seminoles, except that the name was actually endorsed by a local tribe and yet people kept trying to be offended for them.

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

I'd have to dig for it... but, I remember an AP poll putting it about 30% who didn't like it.

As a consequence does that not make this whole thing yet another example of people being outraged on other people's behalf, when the group who actually have the right to be upset are ambivalent?

Yup.

Of course, if sufficient numbers of Native Americans ARE offended then fair enough, otherwise, perhaps the liberal-minded people who are likely stirring this up can find something more worthy to pursue?

Reminds me of this:

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

As a consequence does that not make this whole thing yet another example of people being outraged on other people's behalf, when the group who actually have the right to be upset are ambivalent?

Of course, if sufficient numbers of Native Americans ARE offended then fair enough, otherwise, perhaps the liberal-minded people who are likely stirring this up can find something more worthy to pursue?

I believe it was. I certainly have yet to meet a native who is offended by it. Of course nobody around here really uses that word except in historical context.

I think it has always been a very small portion of Natives and a whole bunch of people to be offended on their behalf.

Its not like any of the Redskin logos or merchandise is offensive or degrading. I think their main logo is a nice piece of art.

They should name themselves the "Andrew Jacksons"

That should go over much better!

In all seriousness, I wonder if this will force Synder to change it.

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

The Survey has gone both ways. There was one about 10 years ago and one more recently which reached drastically opposite conclusions.

As a Native American, although not 'offended' by it, I do consider it to be a slur and in poor taste.

I suggest they change their name to the Washington Honkey Crackers. That way I can be mad about something. There isn't enough white people racism out there, and that makes me mad. We are being neglected because we are white.

See what I did there?

I wonder if Red Man chew is next.

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

the key word there is "self identified." The weight I'd give to the views of a person with some indian anceestry, but no real contact with that culture, is very different from that I'd give to a person living on a reservation under tribal law.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

As a consequence does that not make this whole thing yet another example of people being outraged on other people's behalf, when the group who actually have the right to be upset are ambivalent?

Of course, if sufficient numbers of Native Americans ARE offended then fair enough, otherwise, perhaps the liberal-minded people who are likely stirring this up can find something more worthy to pursue?

The fight is actually carried in large part by organized Native American groups, which I'd imagine do a pretty good job of representing the interest of their people.

Further, Native Americans are an incredibly diverse lot, and not exactly monolithic.

 pretre wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

The Survey has gone both ways. There was one about 10 years ago and one more recently which reached drastically opposite conclusions.

As a Native American, although not 'offended' by it, I do consider it to be a slur and in poor taste.

If they just change it to "Washington Warriors" and keep the indian motif... would you be okay with that?

I'd think it'd be pretty wicked.

Newer survey with 2/3 thinking it is offensive:
http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

 pretre wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

The Survey has gone both ways. There was one about 10 years ago and one more recently which reached drastically opposite conclusions.

As a Native American, although not 'offended' by it, I do consider it to be a slur and in poor taste.

Huh, from this side of the Atlantic, I've always got the impression that the R word was a lot more "harmless" than the N word.

I guess that's what an extra few centuries does.

 Polonius wrote:
the key word there is "self identified." The weight I'd give to the views of a person with some indian anceestry, but no real contact with that culture, is very different from that I'd give to a person living on a reservation under tribal law.

Man, there's a can of worms.

Further, Native Americans are an incredibly diverse lot, and not exactly monolithic.

Mostly agreed, although after a good sunday dinner I can get pretty monolithic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Huh, from this side of the Atlantic, I've always got the impression that the R word was a lot more "harmless" than the N word.

I guess that's what an extra few centuries does.

The fact that we can say Redskins on the forum and not 'The N Word' does agree with you. It is more harmless than the N word. Just as cracker, jew, gyp, jap, etc are generally 'more harmless'. Doesn't mean they aren't slurs.

 azreal13 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Forgive me, not being Murican I may have missed some of the subtleties, but wasn't there some survey done where an overwhelming majority of self-identified Native Americans said they weren't bothered by the name?

The Survey has gone both ways. There was one about 10 years ago and one more recently which reached drastically opposite conclusions.

As a Native American, although not 'offended' by it, I do consider it to be a slur and in poor taste.

Huh, from this side of the Atlantic, I've always got the impression that the R word was a lot more "harmless" than the N word.

I guess that's what an extra few centuries does.

I think it likely has to do with the near Genocide. It's harder to get a view across when you are in the super minority.

Just a matter of time before they kowtow to public opinion...I mean, look at the Washington Bullets...rrr, Wizards

 Sasori wrote:


I think it likely has to do with the near Genocide. It's harder to get a view across when you are in the super minority.

Thats a little unfair.

The vast majority of natives died from disease, which would have happened regardless. Even if contact had been 100% positive.

It would have just made the spread westward a little slower.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The vast majority of natives died from disease, which would have happened regardless. .

Yeah, totally nothing to do with those free blankets.

And just because I'm feeling like it:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Sasori wrote:


I think it likely has to do with the near Genocide. It's harder to get a view across when you are in the super minority.

Thats a little unfair.

Well, it's not an accusation, it's a fact. There simply aren't a lot of Native Americans left. Between disease, war, and assimilation, very few are around as an independent cultural bloc.

pretre, Jew is a slur? I knew the others were.

I mean, saying "You're a Jew, correct?" would be offensive?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
pretre, Jew is a slur? I knew the others were.

I mean, saying "You're a Jew, correct?" would be offensive?

Depends on the facial expression you have when saying it

And I guess the uniform you're wearing...

 d-usa wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
pretre, Jew is a slur? I knew the others were.

I mean, saying "You're a Jew, correct?" would be offensive?

Depends on the facial expression you have when saying it

Or the context. "Dude, that guy just totally jew'd me."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
And I guess the uniform you're wearing...

Oh snap!

Every argument starts with 'it is racist buuuuuuuuuuut'.

Just because people are not offended by a slur doesn't make it not a slur.

Just because some native Americans used the term for making communications with 'the white man' easier doesn't mean that infinite blanket permission should be granted in perpetuity for everyone to continue using it.

There are two distinct camps:
*Native Americans who want all native american mascots removed from sports.
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

A majority of college teams have actually negotiated with tribes for which they use their names and representations and pay homage (and money). In fact, the logo itself is not the crux of the redskin's issue for the current lawsuits. They could be the washington warriors tomorrow and changing nothing but the name.

I am a Washington DC person and a life-long redskins fan. We used to have the washington 'bullets' when we were the murder capital of the nation... They changed the name, the world survived. They can change the name and nothing will be harmed and the world will keep on spinning. The second one native american told me it was offensive, that changed my position on the issue.

You want to know why here in DC they are like 'no one is offended'? Because they murdered the CRAP out of the tribe which was native to the potomac/washington area. They didn't even have local government recognition until 2012. Pretty easy to say the local native american representatives are 'ok with it' when they basically were genocided 6 generations ago.

We have a road in DC called INDIAN HEAD HIGHWAY. It is named as such as the town was on the border of the 'at the time' Indian lands. On this road, Travelers would hanf the sever heads and scalps of native americans they 'murdered' as a sign that the road was safe to travel.

There is no one to complain as all the people who have a problem with it were killed and heads hung on signposts. Lack of 'vocal offense' from the impacted population doesn't justify a name. It doesn't justify it for Indian head Highway, it doesn't justify it for the skins.

Sasori wrote:I wonder if Red Man chew is next.

Yes

pretre wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
pretre, Jew is a slur? I knew the others were.

I mean, saying "You're a Jew, correct?" would be offensive?

Depends on the facial expression you have when saying it

Or the context. "Dude, that guy just totally jew'd me."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
And I guess the uniform you're wearing...

Oh snap!

Is that a specific uniform or in general?

nkelsch wrote:
Every argument starts with 'it is racist buuuuuuuuuuut'.

I posted this in another thread, but it always seems appropriate...

nkelsch wrote:
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

And similar other mascots removed. I assume that's what you meant, but we'll clarify for everyone else's sake. I find the Indian's logo more offensive than the Redskin's name.

 pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

And similar other mascots removed. I assume that's what you meant, but we'll clarify for everyone else's sake. I find the Indian's logo more offensive than the Redskin's name.

Really?

I'm serious... why?

 pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

And similar other mascots removed. I assume that's what you meant, but we'll clarify for everyone else's sake. I find the Indian's logo more offensive than the Redskin's name.

There are two distinct camps:
*Native Americans who want all native american mascots removed from sports.
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

I said 2 camps. Currently there are no other teams or mascots which they are suing over trademarks because they are racial slurs. There are ones which are 'offensive' or 'dehumanizing because mascot'. The Indians mascot is offensive... but that team has distanced themselves from it and have nonsense monster mascots now. They currently can keep their trademarks and team name and slowly phase out that sambo mascot.

That is why there are two camps as the Redskins stand alone on the trademark fight and that is why this is not a suit against "Braves, Indians, Chiefs" and so on.

Washington Redskins
Mississippi state flag