The political gripe thread--from Strange Days

Re: Strange days

Umm...the sources being some of the American Indians themselves? You do need to expand your reading on this issue and perhaps stop looking at it from a left v right political issue. Because it's a bit more complicated than that. To me I think Mr. Billy Mills sums up the issue better than most:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... ust-152165

Now I don't know about the detrimental effects on children with mascots, that seems a stretch to me. It just doesn't make much sense to say your honoring a race of people by making them a sports mascot, seems pretty demeaning to me unless that is who you actually are, like the Haskell Indians. Again, to me the appropriate way to go on this is to ask a tribes permission to use their name if you want to honor them by representing them in a sporting venue...see Florida Seminoles. This isn't Americans assimilating different cultures or taking a little bit of this and that and making it their own. Quite a number of tribe were forced from their lands and were forced by the US government to stop their customs and traditions. And now we're shitting over their old customs by doing stupid chants and tomahawk chops in sporting arenas, as if American Indian ever walked around doing that shit. Our country screwed American Indians over pretty good, if some of them want us to stop using them as fucking mascots I think we should respect them by listening to their complaints over the issue.

 

No fog, American Indians are not children throwing a tantrum. I am sorry that is how you see it. Let me see if I understand you correctly here, lets say person A insults person B, person B objects to the insult and asks for an apology, person A refuses to do so. Who would be the child throwing a tantrum in this scenario? To me it's the jackass who made an insult in the first place and refuses to take it back. It's a team name that's been changed before and has even changed cities, if anybody should be "getting over it" it should be the sports fans.

 

Last I heard, Liz Warren was most likely not to have any American Indian blood. Her ancestors probably claimed to be Cherokee when it was beneficial to do so, during land allotments. Her ancestors are not found on the Dawes Rolls, so she is very unlikely to be a member of any of the 5 civilized tribes that made their way to Oklahoma.

However, to me it doesn't matter if you're an American Indian or not on this issue. You just have to be human to understand that personal want or need have some others show you some respect for your identity. I know for a fact that Redskin is considered a very derogatory term to some tribes. But I should add you're not going to get unanimous agreement among American Indians on the name change issue, there's 567 federally recognized tribes scattered across the States. Perhaps a more pertinent question could be, what number of tribes or American Indians can we cause offense? My answer would be zero. It's their identity as a people, and we should show some respect where we haven't always before. (I am part Indian just not a member of a tribe, although my kids and husband are members of Cherokee nation--husband votes in every tribal election)

And I'd agree asking to borrow ideas or styles from other cultures is asinine, we as humans have been adopting from others since time began.

 

Senator, it's the usual right-wing thing. If anyone is offended at anything like this, then it's because they're childish or entitled or over-sensitive due to whatever. What the right likes to get offended by is IMPORTANT stuff like "the war against Christmas," or what the Pope has to say about economic policy.

Interestingly, the right has no problems insulting huge groups of people by marginalizing them as whining children. People they insult should just be tougher and think that it's making them strong.

Sound familiar? Yeah, it's nothing more than school-yard bullying. Nothing new to see here.

 

Author is full of shit, because there are number American Indian groups that have been trying for years to end the name Redskins and eradicate the use of them being used as mascots. But pick and choose what fits your narrative, right fog?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRribtqdXGw

http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/commu ... on-mascots

And there is no comparison between those other team names, NONE.

 

Mo, here is my stance on the issue:

- See more at: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1280&start=30#sthash.ryE9FXhU.dpuf

Btw...Irish isn't a derogatory term referring to your ethnicity. Fighting Irish? Perhaps, especially with a stupid leprechaun in a boxing stance (but I think my bias against Notre Dame is showing now? And why do they want to associated with the French anyhow? Btw, part Irish and French) However, Redskin is a derogatory term to refer to American Indians:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskinred·skin (rdskn)

You don't see professional sports teams called spics, honkeys, or the "n-word."

I can point out more references, if needed, pointing out American Indians are offended by the term Redskin than just those 7 tribal leaders (who were elected to represent their tribe or nation). But I'll ask the same question I asked before, how many American Indians and tribes it ok to offend?

So we keep American Indians in our thoughts by a making money off their image through a sports team; and, just for fun, do stereotyped chants and tomahawk chops otherwise they'll be even more marginalized and forgotten? Nah, I think we can do better than that. And again, I think it would be better to ask individual tribes to use their names and images. Perhaps some cultural enlightenment about the tribe can take place this route as well? Tribes across this country are sometimes quite unique from each other and that is lost on quite a number of Americans who think "plains Indians" when American Indians are mentioned. There's no way a generic Indian sports team honors the entire American Indian community, it's just not possible. It's like saying a Chinese sports team honors the entire Asian population.

Btw, here's another group demanding a mascot change. Does this help people understand what the fuss is, or no? Please take look at the picture, it's pretty easy to see why offense is taken:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cal ... story.html

And the school is refusing to change. But since they're not American Indian, I bet they get quicker action on it being changed (since many white people don't claim to be part Arab that tan easy in the summer and have high cheek bones).

 

Could we honestly reach at point in life where there are zero people being offended about anything? Nope, I can cede that point. But it's hard to see where you draw the line on the number of natives we should be allowed to offend with the term "Redskin." So if there is one tribe offended by it, does that make it okay? It's hard to say yes when you know the harsh reason why it's so offensive to some.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/2 ... skins.html

 

I hope I didn't label EVERY Republican, Rog. But if you're comfortable identifying yourself with a party that gains votes by race baiting and gay bashing, then the label fits. If, on the other hand, you're a Republican who believes in small government and the private sector making most decisions AND you're uncomfortable with the race baiting and gay bashing, with the tendency to call liberals traitors, then you're not "the right" that I'm talking about.

The modern Republican Party has embraced ignorance, bullying, and divisiveness in order to get enough extremists out to vote to remain in power. There are STILL plenty of real conservatives out there -- I know quite a few -- and most of them will agree with my characterization. It's a very sad thing that the party of Lincoln is now pandering to folks most comfortable echoing the aims of the KKK, but if you don't identify yourself with that sort of thing, then what I've said shouldn't offend you in the slightest.

 

Now, back to the question at hand, is there any compelling reason to keep the name Redskins? Is there someone whose rights will be infringed upon if it is changed? Is there an ethic group that will be offended if it's changed?

I'm asking because all I've seen in opposition to changing the name is that it's political correctness run amok, it's the victim mentality, it's the tyranny of the minority. Here's a good translation for those arguments: "It doesn't offend me, so I don't really care if it offends anyone else."

 

The intention rings hollow in both cases. The owner basically changed the name because they moved to Fenway Park and wanted to keep the valuable Indian marketing scheme (Red Sox, RedSkin), he hired Willie "Lone Star" Dietz after the name change. To Marshall American Indians were really nothing more than a valuable marketing scheme. BTW, Dietz was a fraud...like so many before and after him, he claimed Indian blood where there was most likely none. Marshall and current fans can try their best to offer excuses for keeping a racial slur as a professional sports team name, but like Don said there has not been one compelling argument for keeping a racial slur for something as trivial as a Sports team name--because in the end you're saying a Sports team name has more worth than a group of people.

Also, I can't see such a team named Houston Spics or Minnesota Honkeys being tolerated by the general public, nor should it. And, if there's a professional sports team that starts up calling itself the Gringos and you're offended 'Fog, I will protest the team name with you because racial slurs shouldn't be something that's celebrated in this country.