CASHdog296 wrote: I think their views should be respected, and team names be changed.

But people just genuinely don't care what they think. And nothing's gonna happen.

bwwyyyy wrote:

CASHdog296 wrote: I think their views should be respected, and team names be changed.

But people just genuinely don't care what they think. And nothing's gonna happen.

Should their views be respected even if they don't make sense?

HarleyD wrote:

bwwyyyy wrote:

CASHdog296 wrote: I think their views should be respected, and team names be changed.

But people just genuinely don't care what they think. And nothing's gonna happen.

Should their views be respected even if they don't make sense?

Is it necessary that they make sense to us?

This seems to be the most persuasive argument in the article (which apparently some of the respondents didn't feel a need to even read before posting their opinions).

How can other ethnic groups and those who are not Native Americans decide what is an appropriate way to represent Native Americans, whether or not it is an honor/homage to the Native Americans and whether or not it is offensive to Native Americans?

That actually seems like a reasonable point.  If it offends them, it offends them.  You can't tell them it doesn't.  If they are not honored by it then it is not an honor.

TheShank wrote: I do question whether this so-called group are really representing their respective tribes opinions...

schafrath wrote: I've come full circle on this issue. I used to vehemently defend the Indians moniker because...well, I liked it. And I grew up with it. How dare someone suggest changing my baseball team's name simply because it might be in poor taste.

But I've come around on this particular issue that it's time to dump these names. Minimally, "Redskins" needs to go on the trash heap of history. There's no way to sanitize that nasty term. I know how the South likes to hang onto their history (Ole Miss) but it's time. Call 'em the "skins", revamp the logo to eliminate the profile.. clean it up. Their "super fan" wears that idiotic head dress and buckskins to the HOF ceremony every year in Canton. That's embarassing. At least it should be.

And the "they don't mind, so why should we?" argument is a bit weak. We should mind because it's wrong. To use terms like "Redskins" is morally repugnant. I'm still not entirely sure about terms like Fighting Sioux, etc., who allegedly try to honor Native Americans. What I see, though, is 99% of the time these names don't honor anybody but simply reduce a race of people to caricatures. Go to a local high school game and see kids doing the "tomahawk chop" or painting their faces. Now how many of these schools calling themselves the "indians" or "Chipps" teach kids about the history of local Native American tribes or the poverty of the Pine Ridge Reservation? I'm guessing about zero. They're typically not honoring them, they're reducing them to mascots and cartoon characters just one step above tigers, bears, etc. It's dehumanizing. I'm sure it could be done "the right way" but I'm yet to see it.

LeBentley wrote:

schafrath wrote: I've come full circle on this issue. I used to vehemently defend the Indians moniker because...well, I liked it. And I grew up with it. How dare someone suggest changing my baseball team's name simply because it might be in poor taste.

But I've come around on this particular issue that it's time to dump these names. Minimally, "Redskins" needs to go on the trash heap of history. There's no way to sanitize that nasty term. I know how the South likes to hang onto their history (Ole Miss) but it's time. Call 'em the "skins", revamp the logo to eliminate the profile.. clean it up. Their "super fan" wears that idiotic head dress and buckskins to the HOF ceremony every year in Canton. That's embarassing. At least it should be.

And the "they don't mind, so why should we?" argument is a bit weak. We should mind because it's wrong. To use terms like "Redskins" is morally repugnant. I'm still not entirely sure about terms like Fighting Sioux, etc., who allegedly try to honor Native Americans. What I see, though, is 99% of the time these names don't honor anybody but simply reduce a race of people to caricatures. Go to a local high school game and see kids doing the "tomahawk chop" or painting their faces. Now how many of these schools calling themselves the "indians" or "Chipps" teach kids about the history of local Native American tribes or the poverty of the Pine Ridge Reservation? I'm guessing about zero. They're typically not honoring them, they're reducing them to mascots and cartoon characters just one step above tigers, bears, etc. It's dehumanizing. I'm sure it could be done "the right way" but I'm yet to see it.

How is this different than the Fighting Irish though?  They dress up like leprechauns which, IMO, should be considered equally as offensive to Irish people as dressing up like a native american.  No ones pissed though because Irish people aren't looking for something to be pissed about (not that most native american people are either, its a vocal minority as noted above).   

I really don't care if they do change any of their names, if the owners of those teams want to change it by all means do.  I just think trying to force their opinion on others is ridiculous.

Smerc wrote: id like to see notre dame change their names because fighting irish is offensive

Also important to note, "we" don't get to address it and change it just because we want to.  "We" don't have any controlling share of those private businesses and can't force them to do anything.  If we want to we can get pissed and try to provoke enough public outrage that the business will want to change it, but we don't get to make decision for private businesses.  

If enough people got pissed and said New England is really ridiculing true patriots because drunk fans are dressing up like idiots and its disrespectful, should they be forced to change their name because its offensive to a few outspoken people?  Or should those people realize that its actually just a sports team and drunk fans, and that none of that has any bearing on what a patriot is? 


To me this is only being made a big deal because Native Americans today are largely in poverty and people feel bad for them because "we" put them in that situation.  There is nothing overtly racist about any of this, and the fact there was legislation brought is ridiculous.

bwwyyyy wrote: Like the Italian Americans who are offended by portrayals like The Sopranos?  Are mob movies & TV shows a thing that should stop?

Maybe.  That's a little bit more complex.  There really are mobsters.  Not all Italian Americans are "connected" but the mob exists.  Is it a racial slur or a depiction of a negative element of society?  Now if they had called "The Sopranos" something else like "The Dagos" or "The Wops" the answer would be a lot clearer

If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of how many Native Americans feel that way.  But, IMO, seeing it this way does demand a rationale above "because they say so."  I still don't feel like I've seen one.

I tend to agree with "if it's wrong it's wrong"  But I also tend to believe that if they say so, it is so.  If they say they are offended who can tell them "no you're not".  Additional rationale isn't needed.  I can't say "You need to be offended AND provide reasons that are good enough for me."

Like I said above, "Redskins" feels like it could be offensive to me, but is it really a deliberate slur?  Is there a history to "Redskins" that I'm not aware of that differentiates it from something made-up like "Whiteskins" or "Blackskins?"

Not that I know of.

1) This is kind of overly dramatic, isn't it?  No, it's not.  You'd feel silly saying something like this about, say, Vikings, wouldn't you?  (There aren't still Vikings anywhere, are there?)  No, and again if there were still Vikings and they took offense it would be the same thing.

2) Is "by people who do not belong to that culture" really relevant?  Would "Redskins" transform from a deliberate slur to a term of endearment if the owner of the Redskins was Native American?

Well, we've finally (and probably inevitably) come to the dreaded "N-word" as an example.  Within the African American community it is used sometimes gratuitously and yes...as a term of endearment at times.  I on the other hand cannot even type it.  Richard Pryor used it ad nauseam and even included it in the title of one of his albums.  However later in his life after a trip to Africa he said would not use it again.  Regardless of who speaks it and for what purpose, there are African Americans who are offended by its' use so probably no, I guess it is not relevant who uses a racial slur.  We're back to "if it's wrong, it's wrong".  My point there was aimed more at the idea of non-Native Americans can't defend it as an honor to Native Americans.  They can't say what is or isn't an honor or tribute and whether or not it is offensive.

HarleyD wrote: 


I'm really thinking about it and I'm trying to reconcile the idea that if there are people who are truly and genuinely offended by it (and there undeniably are) is that in and of itself enough to make it wrong?

LeBentley wrote:

HarleyD wrote: 


I'm really thinking about it and I'm trying to reconcile the idea that if there are people who are truly and genuinely offended by it (and there undeniably are) is that in and of itself enough to make it wrong?

To this I would say definitely not.  People get offended over all kinds of crap, it doesn't mean everyone else has to bend to their will.  People can get offended for very good reasons and for very ridiculous reasons, the simple fact that someone is offended does not make something wrong.

HarleyD wrote:

LeBentley wrote:

HarleyD wrote: 


I'm really thinking about it and I'm trying to reconcile the idea that if there are people who are truly and genuinely offended by it (and there undeniably are) is that in and of itself enough to make it wrong?

To this I would say definitely not.  People get offended over all kinds of crap, it doesn't mean everyone else has to bend to their will.  People can get offended for very good reasons and for very ridiculous reasons, the simple fact that someone is offended does not make something wrong.

Does the fact that it is race based...and therefore by definition racist...make it wrong?  It's not like they're offended by the color of your shirt, or your haircut, or the car you drive.  It is racial.

CaryNCBrownsBacker wrote: I think the Dolphins, Panthers, Bengals, Cardinals, Rams, Eagles  Seahawks, Falcons, Jaguars, Colts, Broncos, Ravens, Bears, Bills and Lions are all OFFENSIVE.   These are all members of the animal family being dominated by the white man to make money.  In addition PETA doesn't like it either.

The Giants and Titans name should be changed because they make little people frightened.

The 49ers make fun of hillbillies with their silly picks and suspenders.

The Saints?  Really they try to kill people the Catholics are out raged.

The Chiefs ... nope can't have them either I'm offended by the arrow it's a symbol of war.

The Packers ... well think FUDGE ... they can stay

The Cowboys and Texans make fun of the horsey people.

The Jets and Chargers cause global warming and leave chem trails

The Steelers are just G A Y ... they can stay

The Vikings, Raiders and Buccaneers  raped and pillaged they should be banned from the league

The Patriots stood up to tyranny ... that is no longer acceptable

Which brings us to the BROWNS ... you are on your own with this one.

Grow up already people and get over this I'm OFFENDED Political Correctness B.S.