Redskins

[Town Heretic]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The issue you are presenting is that 10% of a group is enough when offended to act on their claim.

I don't know that the number matters if a) you're serious about not meaning to offend and b) you realize you're actually offending people. I only used the number to dispel the nonsense about only white people caring or something similarly underinformed that some people were trotting out.

That's wrong. The percentage should be closer to your example as follows: 100%

You missed the point of that illustration, which was to underscore that if you don't mean to offend someone and you do then it's time to stop doing that. So if you say a thing not meaning to offend and one in ten of the people you use it on are offended it seems you should do for them what you'd do for an individual.

 

[Granite]

If this isn't a word we'd use to an Indian's face or in polite conversation drop the ridiculous claim that it's a warm, honorary "compliment." This has more to do with the all-American eagerness to have the right to offend more than anything else.

 

[rexlunae]

I gotta tell you. Using 2 spaces after a period is poor form. You should fix that. I could even be convinced it is offensive to me.

Ask me how much I care. Go on, ask me if I care about your put-on offense. I'm an atheist posting on a Christian message board. Do you think I haven't learned to walk the line between making a point and offending the wrong person?

The comment about the leaders using idiots is merely an explanation of why someone as intelligent as yourself would make a mistake like calling for a name change when none is warranted. Or, an even deeper point, one can say it isn't the name change but the acceptance of a form of thought control.

This isn't 1984, and you aren't Orwell. There's a large space between telling a company that it can't secure legal exclusivity for a genuinely offensive racial slur and telling you that you can't have whatever thoughts, or express whatever ideas you wish. You want to perpetuate dated and oppressive stereotypes about an entire race of people? You are free to do that, as misguided as that is. It's pretty clear that a fair number of people here aren't capable of seeing Native Americans as anything but a cliche from a coloring book from their childhoods anyway. But you aren't entitled to enlist the aid of the US PTO in the process. They have a responsibility to the entire nation, and especially to people who might be harmed by granting ownership of a name to a person who doesn't come from the group that it references.

 

[IMJerusha]

Well again, you have no idea what you're talking about. And at this rate you're being willfully, deliberately ignorant. Check the link.

Sure. Provide it please so I don't have to search forever. There's 600 plus posts in this thread. Or was that your intent?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...y-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...hington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

Ah, so a buddy's passing on a rumor...despite the fact that there's no indication anywhere that this is the case. Top notch.

He has no reason to lie to me and yes, he is a top notch friend to this family.

 

[Granite]

Sure. Provide it please so I don't have to search forever. There's 600 plus posts in this thread. Or was that your intent?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update?click=feed

My intent was to inform. This is about the fourth time I've posted this link. And frankly you stalled yesterday out of sheer stubbornness.

Do you have a point to make with the links you provided?

 

[Granite]

At this stage in the game I really think the only sort of person who'd defend usage of the word is doing so with a spiteful, hateful glee--the joy of offending.

 

[IMJerusha]

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update?click=feed

My intent was to inform. This is about the fourth time I've posted this link. And frankly you stalled yesterday out of sheer stubbornness.

Do you have a point to make with the links you provided?

Yes, there is a reason why Crazy Horse referred to his people as the Red Nation! And why Sitting Bull referred to his skin as red. It had nothing to do with the taking of Indian scalps. It had to do with the fact that Indians considered themselves a holy people under God and the color red embodied that in their culture.

And your link proves nothing just as that 1863 document proves nothing except that Indians were called red skinned.

 

[Granite]

Yes, there is a reason why Crazy Horse referred to his people as the Red Nation! And why Sitting Bull referred to his skin as red. It had nothing to do with the taking of Indian scalps. It had to do with the fact that Indians considered themselves a holy people under God and the color red embodied that in their culture.

If you're going to keep talking to yourself I'm just going to pretend you're not here. You're borderline trolling. There's no point trying to engage you anymore.

 

[IMJerusha]

If you're going to keep talking to yourself I'm just going to pretend you're not here. You're borderline trolling. There's no point trying to engage you anymore.

I'm responding to your posts and stating my opinions as well as facts in regard to the OP. How is that trolling? This family is of American Indian heritage. Don't I have a right to post my opinion and the facts of the American Indian culture as regards the OP? Get over yourself!

 

[Granite]

I'm responding to your posts and stating my opinions as well as facts in regard to the OP. How is that trolling? This family is of American Indian heritage. Don't I have a right to post my opinion and the facts of the American Indian culture as regards the OP? Get over yourself!

You didn't address the link at all. You're saying that the Indians considered themselves "under God," which is--to put it nicely--a pretty weird way of saying they were a spiritual people, and has nothing to do with the color of their skin, or the way white men have degraded them because of it.

 

[IMJerusha]

You didn't address the link at all. You're saying that the Indians considered themselves "under God," which is--to put it nicely--a pretty weird way of saying they were a spiritual people, and has nothing to do with the color of their skin, or the way white men have degraded them because of it.

I did address your link and I dismissed it as a false explanation of the term red skin. I provided links to articles which also bore a differing opinion.

 

[Granite]

I did address your link and I dismissed it as a false explanation of the term red skin. I provided links to articles which also bore a differing opinion.

You don't sound like you actually read it at all.

 

[IMJerusha]

You don't sound like you actually read it at all.

The article was incorrect IMO and, yes, I did read it or I would not have been able to comment about it.

 

[Granite]

The article was incorrect IMO and, yes, I did read it or I would not have been able to comment about it.

The article was history. Your opinion doesn't change facts.

This whole discussion boils down to whether the right to be an offensive, crass, crude jerk is more important than basic manners.

 

[IMJerusha]

The article was history.

Wrong. The article was spun around an 1863 publication.

Your opinion doesn't change facts.

Neither does a spin on a publication.

This whole discussion boils down to whether the right to be an offensive, crass, crude jerk is more important than basic manners.

I think this whole discussion boils down to Wasichu.

 

[Granite]

Wrong. The article was spun around an 1863 publication.

:doh:

Well, that takes the prize.

Neither does a spin on a publication.

It spoke for itself. This is like trying to spin an ad for slaves.

I think this whole discussion boils down to Wasichu.

Uh, no. Not really. It boils down to a sneering macho attitude that we need to outgrow.

 

[IMJerusha]

:doh:

Well, that takes the prize.

Gee, thanks. lain:

It spoke for itself.

Yes, it did. It just didn't say what you or the author of the article want it to say.

This is like trying to spin an ad for slaves.

Both of which are detestable in my opinion which is another reason why I don't like that article as well as your assertion.

Uh, no. Not really. It boils down to a sneering macho attitude that we need to outgrow.

I don't do macho so I have nothing to outgrow.

 

[Town Heretic]

Don't offend one in ten Native Americans when you don't have to. Do the good you can do. Especially if you don't have to or when it inconveniences. That's real virtue.

 

[IMJerusha]

Don't offend one in ten Native Americans when you don't have to. Do the good you can do. Especially if you don't have to or when it inconveniences. That's real virtue.

I don't know, Town. It seems to me that the name was chosen for the team because it describes fearsome and proud warriors. Offense is a funny thing. It has no power unless it is taken.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't know, Town. It seems to me that the name was chosen for the team because it describes fearsome and proud warriors. Offense is a funny thing. It has no power unless it is taken.

Except offense is being taken by a growing number of the people you'd say weren't meant to be offended. It's happening. And the decent thing, especially if the offense wasn't intended, is to stop doing it.