OSH;1528889 wrote:Native Americans aren't carrying around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins.

But they at one point did. And most still take pride in their history. See: Seminoles.

vdubb96;1526727 wrote:Don't know if they were forced too but I think they are the Warriors now?

The whole name change thing is stupid. It's about as dumb as my freshmen year at Wright State when they changed the "viking" looking Rowdy Raider to a freaking wolf!!! What the hell? The explenation from the president as to why they changed it to a wolf but kept the name "raiders" was unreal.

The real question is why did you go to Wright State?

GOONx19;1528898 wrote:But they at one point did. And most still take pride in their history. See: Seminoles.

We've already cleared that up about the Seminoles.

Thanks.

OSH;1528889 wrote:There are plenty of sources that can be quoted and personal stories by any amount of people who can tell of different usages. The fact of the matter, Yankee isn't really derogatory -- especially these days. No one really ever says, "Don't use that word." It is very similar to the term "Indian." Native Americans aren't saying the term "Indian" is what is derogatory, it's the caricatures of them and the symbolism that is being used. Native Americans aren't carrying around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins. Nor do they have red skin. It's all stereotypical depictions. They are also the only people group that is used throughout sport for this sort of thing.

Okay, okay, I know...Fighting Irish, Spartans, Vikings, etc. etc. etc. Where is the plight of those people groups these days? Heck, where was it ever really at? The teams and/or schools that went with many of those mascots too, they celebrated themselves -- i.e., Minnesota was settled by Scandinavians, so they used Vikings. No Native Americans created the Washington football team, Cleveland baseball team, or Atlanta baseball team, to name a few. So, when Haskell Indian Nations University went with "Indians" as its mascot, they are celebrating themselves.

We all know people who use the term "*****" or "gay," but never intend on using it derogatory...but there are many that believe it is. Hence, why "gay" is never hardly used as meaning "happy" anymore. It would not be okay to use other racial imagery, so why should it be okay to use Native American imagery?

I've never heard anyone say "don't use that word" in regards to Redskins either.

OSH;1528889 wrote:Native Americans aren't saying the term "Indian" is what is derogatory, it's the caricatures of them and the symbolism that is being used. Native Americans aren't carrying around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins. Nor do they have red skin. It's all stereotypical depictions.

So back to my earlier question. Change the mascot, and the name can stay? Yes or no?

Why are we listening to .02% of the population, in which 90% don't even represent the people "offended"?

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1528532 wrote:I equate it to the judge who said of pornography, "I know it when I see it.". I don't remember his name. Anyway, I don't suggest everyone in the world can be protected from offense. However when there is a critical mass of people of an affected group that reasonably judges something inappropriate, it warranets a hearing. Measured against the history of Native American culture on this continent, I can understand how 'Redskins' meets this definition.

Well said, and that is the point, they AREN'T offended. Journalists try to make this a story every few years or so, it is just louder this year. This same crap happened a few years ago, and a few years before that, and a few years before that. Some lame-ass media person (Peter King in this instance) decides they want to take a stand despite not saying anything for decades before.

It is lame, and just a deflection against the real issues involving American Indians - or any Americans for that matter. It is a smokescreen (note I didn't say smoke signal, that would be offensive). Lame.

OSH;1528997 wrote:We've already cleared that up about the Seminoles.

Thanks.

We've already cleared up 2 out of your 3 arguments. The only argument you've made that carries any weight is that Redskins is an offensive term. And even that is shaky. You keep bringing up the same points, so I'll keep using the same defense. You can't say Native Americans didn't carry around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins, when they clearly did and they don't even try to hide it. Since you always dismiss the easy-to-reference seminoles, I won't use any photos of them.









Thanks.

GOONx19;1529006 wrote:We've already cleared up 2 out of your 3 arguments. The only argument you've made that carries any weight is that Redskins is an offensive term. And even that is shaky. You keep bringing up the same points, so I'll keep using the same defense. You can't say Native Americans didn't carry around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins, when they clearly did and they don't even try to hide it. Since you always dismiss the easy-to-reference seminoles, I won't use any photos of them.









Thanks.

Looks an awful lot like the Redskins logo, now doesn't it?

WebFire;1528998 wrote:I've never heard anyone say "don't use that word" in regards to Redskins either.

Apparently, you aren't paying attention to this debate now. That's part of the whole debate. It's along the same lines as not using the "n-word" or any other derogatory racial terms -- don't really need to list any do we?

WebFire;1528999 wrote:So back to my earlier question. Change the mascot, and the name can stay? Yes or no?

Indians, no. Golden State Warriors did a nice job of going elsewhere with their mascot, which was a caricature of a Native American. I've also heard some say Braves and Warriors are alright if they didn't use the persons instead they could still use a tomahawk or spear or arrow. They say it's very similar to any other Warrior mascot using a sword in their identity -- much like the school I'm at.

Manhattan Buckeye;1529000 wrote:Why are we listening to .02% of the population, in which 90% don't even represent the people "offended"?

Not hardly that way AT ALL. The "study" that most people claim that "most of the Native Americans don't care about the label" comes from 2002. That study said, overall 69% of Native Americans do not care. That still leave 31% that DO. That's 10-year old data...and depending on who and where the statistics are taken from, that's one-quarter to one-third of Native Americans that DO care. That's a large percentage.

Now, let's take that into another hot debate...homosexual marriage. Homosexuals make up an estimated 1.8-3% of the American population. It's easy for Americans to fight for 1.8%, but not 30%? Oh, and what exactly are we trying to do for Native Americans? We are ensuring they are not mascots but people. That's it. They do not want to be represented by Chief Wahoo or Chief Noc-a-homma. People don't want to lose their "cherished" mascots because 30+% of a people group feel discriminated against.

GOONx19;1529006 wrote:We've already cleared up 2 out of your 3 arguments. The only argument you've made that carries any weight is that Redskins is an offensive term. And even that is shaky. You keep bringing up the same points, so I'll keep using the same defense. You can't say Native Americans didn't carry around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins, when they clearly did and they don't even try to hide it. Since you always dismiss the easy-to-reference seminoles, I won't use any photos of them.

Thanks.

WebFire;1529016 wrote:Looks an awful lot like the Redskins logo, now doesn't it?

I can get pictures too.

It's a historical logo that isn't anymore offensive than a cowboy wearing a cowboy hat and spurs. You can take issue with the Indian's logo. Not the Redskins.

OSH;1529060 wrote:










I can get pictures too.

Which proves what? You are chasing your tail.

OSH;1529052 wrote:Apparently, you aren't paying attention to this debate now. That's part of the whole debate. It's along the same lines as not using the "n-word" or any other derogatory racial terms -- don't really need to list any do we?

Of course it's part of the debate. And I am debating that people don't say this about the word redskins. Never once in my life heard it said, in person or on the web, outside of people trying to make it an issue.

OSH;1529052 wrote: Indians, no. Golden State Warriors did a nice job of going elsewhere with their mascot, which was a caricature of a Native American. I've also heard some say Braves and Warriors are alright if they didn't use the persons instead they could still use a tomahawk or spear or arrow. They say it's very similar to any other Warrior mascot using a sword in their identity -- much like the school I'm at.

And the Redskins? You know, what this thread is about?

GOONx19;1529076 wrote:It's a historical logo that isn't anymore offensive than a cowboy wearing a cowboy hat and spurs. You can take issue with the Indian's logo. Not the Redskins.

Absolutely can, and do.

This is historical too, should be allowed:

WebFire;1529080 wrote:Of course it's part of the debate. And I am debating that people don't say this about the word redskins. Never once in my life heard it said, in person or on the web, outside of people trying to make it an issue.

And I have. I've also lived among the Native Americans. It's something that is not said...at all. No one ever said "Indian" either. They aren't Indians. They aren't from India. That's pretty typical in those areas.

Of course many who are not around Native Americans don't understand that. I didn't. Until I moved there, I had no idea.

WebFire;1529081 wrote:And the Redskins? You know, what this thread is about?

I've already addressed that numerous times. It needs changed.

OSH;1529121 wrote: I've already addressed that numerous times. It needs changed.

So you agree that Yankees needs changed too. Thanks.

in the classroom i always worked very hard sometimes unsuccessfully to say native americans instead of indians

Gblock;1529132 wrote:in the classroom i always worked very hard sometimes unsuccessfully to say native americans instead of indians

Shouldn't you say Native Asians considering that's where the originally immigrated from to get to the Americas?

Con_Alma;1529138 wrote:Shouldn't you say Native Asians considering that's where the originally immigrated from to get to the Americas?

no

WebFire;1529129 wrote:So you agree that Yankees needs changed too. Thanks.

If you want to make that jump, go ahead.

Gblock;1529132 wrote:in the classroom i always worked very hard sometimes unsuccessfully to say native americans instead of indians

Interesting, the few people i know prefer the term American Indian and hate the term Native....but who knows? Back in the 80's you could call a Chinese person Oriental and they wouldn't be offended, but now you have to call them Asian even though Asian includes people in the middle east and the former Soviet Union, groups where people look nothing alike.

Manhattan Buckeye;1529206 wrote:Interesting, the few people i know prefer the term American Indian and hate the term Native....but who knows? Back in the 80's you could call a Chinese person Oriental and they wouldn't be offended, but now you have to call them Asian even though Asian includes people in the middle east and the former Soviet Union, groups where people look nothing alike.

I have found this to be true as well...in recent years i have moved more towards american indian as opposed to native american as my understanding has grown.

I am a middle class white male with no native american ties. Not my place to determine if it's offensive or not. I'm sick of middle class white males getting all uppity about shit that doesn't concern them. If the tribes find it offensive, change it. If they don't, leave it alone.

LJ;1529226 wrote:I am a middle class white male with no native american ties. Not my place to determine if it's offensive or not. I'm sick of middle class white males getting all uppity about shit that doesn't concern them. If the tribes find it offensive, change it. If they don't, leave it alone.

Please point out to me in the constitution where being offended grants you additional rights. It doesn't, nice logic fail. LOL