The Name Change

What has changed is not that people have differing views it is that the new 'standard' for acceptability is 100% agreement.

If even one person out of a thousand claims they are offended by something pressure is brought to bear to change whatever that person considers offensive.

I don't think the standard is 100% agreement at all, actually. There are many things in this country that are split right down the middle (most not appropriate for non-political discussion) 50/50, yet we continue to function. Ironically, it's the above kind of hyperbole and absolute statements that are the problem, at least IMO.

"Everyone should be offended by this name, it's totally racist!"

"No one should be offended by this name, it's not racist at all!"

In reality, a productive dialog about why or why not the name is offensive, to whom it's potentially offensive, and viable solutions to the problem is what probably should happen. Instead, just like every other debate in this country, it's two sides shouting at each other about their respective outrage from either side of the fence.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
well, someone is going to be offended if its changed and someone is if it isn't.

what % gets the deciding vote? I dont see 51/49 deciding it..that is just way too close IMO
 
again...with all due respect...there are problems with this idea though well intentioned.

"In reality, a productive dialog about why or why not the name is offensive, to whom it's potentially offensive, and viable solutions to the problem is what probably should happen. Instead, just like every other debate in this country, it's two sides shouting at each other about their respective outrage from either side of the fence."

it shouldn't be discussed at all. the whole dynamic is being pushed for political reasons. if it's offensive, let economics decide. we don't need to sit down and hold a pow wow every time there is a difference of opinion. and we especially don't need it when the discussion evolves out of something as nebulous as intent and the semantics of offensive. that's a road to nowhere. humbly submit that where the discussions need to be held...with some commitment to viable solutions by all parties...given limited time and a busy schedule...are those with more palpable consequences: JOBS!!!!!

some things are worthy of sitting down and having a national conversation about. this isn't one of them given all the other options!!!

not being nasty...especially under current strictures! this Redskin name thing needs to take a back seat for a while. folks like Reid trot it out now then precisely to keep us from talking about the more important stuff. venturing into politics here...so I'm changing the channel!
 
well, someone is going to be offended if its changed and someone is if it isn't.

what % gets the deciding vote? I dont see 51/49 deciding it..that is just way too close IMO

I don't have an answer for that. Like Abe said, you can't please all the people all the time; someone is going to end up unhappy in almost every situation.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
well, I'm glad I am not on that council. Somebody is going to be VERY hated when it goes final.
 
Man, they just won't let up.

50 Senators now asking for a change:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/s...-act-on-redskins-name.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

And one new claim I haven't seen anywhere:

The letter from the Senate said, however, that “Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue.” It said that organizations representing more than two million Native Americans and 300 sovereign tribes had passed resolutions supporting a change in a team name they found to be racially offensive.
 
Man, they just won't let up.

50 Senators now asking for a change:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/s...-act-on-redskins-name.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

And one new claim I haven't seen anywhere:

The letter from the Senate said, however, that “Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue.” It said that organizations representing more than two million Native Americans and 300 sovereign tribes had passed resolutions supporting a change in a team name they found to be racially offensive.

lmao!

1) all Democrats. gee....what could be the politics behind this?

2) The VA senators didn't sign? gee.....why would that be?

why should anyone care? the leader of this effort - Harry Reid - is a corrupt, vile, incompetent, closet criminal. at some point....the ethical properties of the instigators need to be wickered into the decision process. this is the same old game. Mr Reid obviously doesn't care about VA deaths, foreign service murders, Americans held in Mexican prisons and about 10 dozen other issues.

apologies for the politics......but there is NOTHING honest or factual about this whole topic.....it's straight up politics (with a hidden mix of class warfare).
 
I hate to do this publically, but that's earns a week's vacation. I understand the thread topic can have political elements, but we aren't discussing those aspects here.

No political commentary on this site guys.
 
And one new claim I haven't seen anywhere:

The letter from the Senate said, however, that “Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue.” It said that organizations representing more than two million Native Americans and 300 sovereign tribes had passed resolutions supporting a change in a team name they found to be racially offensive.

I'm very curious about these organizations, and if they really represent 2M Native Americans. Perhaps Shi No or Ryman can shed some light on that?

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
The name is going to change, I hate to say it, but heres why its going to change.

1- its a minority who is offended by the name, not native americans but a minority of us, and frankly its a vocal one. they feel like they are accomplishing something by clicking like and whining about something that isnt even on the mind of most indians.

2- most indians do not support the name, they dont hate the name, they simply dont care because it doesnt affect them, most arent even football fans. the ones who are football fans mostly support the name, the ones who are anti everything white, hate the name. its really about that simple, the problem is that the ones who support the name get villified and called " colonised" or apples, while the activisty ones are "real indians" for fight something that doesnt matter.

3- white people feel guilty, and about 90% of that guilt is rightfully felt, the way natives have been treated and have continued to be treated in north america is pretty much pathetic and disgusting the medals of dishonour for wounded knee are a case in point, how this affects this issue is simple, its easy to convince someone who already feels some legitimate guilt, to feel manufactured guilt, and this is why you see so many white people jumping on the bandwagon, this way they can feel better without actually having to do anything to really help. " see I signed the petition to change the name, therefore im a good white person not a bad white person."

if you had asked me last year I would have said the name wont change, but I see the constant talking about it, the way its not being allowed to just die down and im pretty sure that this time they will simply whine until it changes and by they I am not even talking about indians, but bleeding heart lefty liberals who refuse to listen to actual indians, in fact its pretty much racism to tell us what to be offended about.

I know you guys want to avoid politicising this but its a political issue, point blank. at this point I think its obvious, we are being dragged into an argument which has no upside anymore. I dont care I will support the Redskins, because its my team, and I dont hate the name, but I know in the end like everything else, the whiners will win.
 
Man, they just won't let up.

50 Senators now asking for a change:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/s...-act-on-redskins-name.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

And one new claim I haven't seen anywhere:

The letter from the Senate said, however, that “Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue.” It said that organizations representing more than two million Native Americans and 300 sovereign tribes had passed resolutions supporting a change in a team name they found to be racially offensive.

That article is pretty half-baked. It says 50 senators, but it wasn't given to republicans. Since there are only 50 US senators, and wasn't given to a large chunk of them, that implies state senators, of which there are what, 2500 of those? So they have 50 of 2550.

"Organizations representing more than 2 million Native Americans" could be anything. There could be some random charity, some random Political Action Group. They don't source ANYTHING in that article. They don't even link to much of anything. That article is merely being a mouthpiece.

It's shoddy journalism at best, an agenda piece at worst. The last thing it needs is repeating.
 
what is Indian Country?

Isn't this just America now and all one people? That's half the problem with America.
 
To be fair you haven't been kept anywhere in a long time. The past is the past. Every race is treated like shit in some fashion.

I'm sympathetic towards the plight of others until it's used against me or as a crutch
 
Oh, I'm not speaking to treatment. I do think it's fair to call the reservations "Indian Country", however.
 
Aah..can I call suburbia white country? Or would that be racist?

Heck, how would just calling anywhere white country go over?
 
Aah..can I call suburbia white country? Or would that be racist?

Heck, how would just calling anywhere white country go over?

Oh, I think that's mostly fair. I bet you could call great swaths of the country "White Country" and many minorities would agree with you. There are portions that are different, but it is mostly White Country, which is why the differentiation makes sense.

Racism is using race as power against or for somebody. Just a label itself isn't racist, unless it's used as a weapon. This is why "Redskin" isn't racist, but "n*****" is. One was used to beat down a group of people, one wasn't.

As far as how it would go over...well, there are lots of stupid people out there. People that say anything to do with skin color is racist, no matter the discussion. People that don't realize the first amendment only protects from the government. The internet is a great thing, but it does give voice to many people to broadcast exactly how ignorant they are. The Redskin debate is just another one of those.

*edit* For the record, I see somebody using a person being white against them as racist. I know, I know, sounds reasonable, but people find that silly a lot.
 
If our congressional leaders are so sensitive/perceptive of indigenous American sensibilities, why don't they remove Andrew Jackson from the 20 dollar bill? Can you imagine the Congo having Leopold's face on their currency, or the Armenians having Mustafa Kemal's face on the Euro. I bet a MUCH higher percentage of American Indians find that to be offensive.
 
No, you can't call suburbia "white country," because any white people that live there moved there on purpose. They were not forced out of their homes and marched thousands of miles suffering hundreds of casualties to suburbia.

I'm going to stop posting on this topic, because it's not clear to me where the lines are. And this topic just gets me angry at some of the responses.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
actually, you can call it white country since the perception and most slander towards white people is about the suburbs.

plus it was what I was getting at. You shouldn't call any certain place "XYZ country" because its not truly theirs. its everyone who wants to live there.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top