• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of these Indian mascot/team names do you believe to be offensive?

Which of these Indian mascot/team names do you believe to be offensive?

  • Total voters
    16
CanadaJohn said:
Yes, freedom of speech - wonderful thing - it would be a principle to live by and fight for - funny how the American government decided to remove the Washington Redskin's name patent protection without cause, thus denying them their actual free speech rights.
Click to expand...

Link to the story?
 
CanadaJohn said:
For argument's sake, I believe your user name is offensive since it denotes papist oppression in my opinion and an affront to gender equality - it's extremely offensive. I might be in a minority of one, but only my opinion counts so you should change it.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for you there are rules against racist and hate language on this forum, so if you genuinely feel this way I would strongly suggest you take it up with the moderators.
 
Cardinal said:
And did they give a reason for the shift in their opinions? I'd like to see those polls, by the way.
Click to expand...

A 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey question on whether the name of the Washington Redskins is offensive to Native Americans is in the news amid renewed national debate over whether the pro football team should change its name. In a letter to fans published in the Washington Post on Wednesday, Oct. 9, team owner Daniel Snyder cited the survey as key evidence in support of the name. “The highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center polled nearly 1,000 self-identified Native Americans from across the continental U.S. and found that 90% of Native Americans did not find the team name ‘Washington Redskins’ to be ‘offensive,’ ” Snyder wrote.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...04-annenberg-study-cited-anew-in-controversy/

A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur#1e9uhmb
 
Cardinal said:
Your question is irrelevant at best, a red herring at worst. I'm not Native American so my opinion doesn't matter. In fact, no non-Native-American's opinion matters.
Click to expand...
Yet you came in and participated anyway. Your disapproval is hollow. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Mason66 said:
I think the OP is trying to see who here have fallen for the PC crap and who haven't.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Some claim that only "Redskins" is offensive and needs to go. The implication being, of course, that they'd leave the other names alone. Some others, however, claim that ALL Indian-related names must go, that they are ALL offensive.
 
haymarket said:
We live in a society where one should be defined by their accomplishment, by their actions, by their character and not by the color of their skin.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Indians, by being wholly incapable of holding their territory, are losers and as such undeserving of recognition by a sports team looking to portray a proud and/or fierce image?
 
CanadaJohn said:
For argument's sake, I believe your user name is offensive since it denotes papist oppression in my opinion and an affront to gender equality - it's extremely offensive. I might be in a minority of one, but only my opinion counts so you should change it.
Click to expand...

And it is a bird, and I hate birds. That makes 2 of us.
 
radcen said:
Pretty much. Some claim that only "Redskins" is offensive and needs to go. The implication being, of course, that they'd leave the other names alone. Some others, however, claim that ALL Indian-related names must go, that they are ALL offensive.
Click to expand...

Here is what I find odd.

The US government took action against the name Redskins. If the same group complained, for whatever reason, about the name of the state of Indiana, would the US government take action against the state?

Their name is Indian related.
 
Cardinal said:
Fortunately for you there are rules against racist and hate language on this forum, so if you genuinely feel this way I would strongly suggest you take it up with the moderators.
Click to expand...

It's not a serious concern of mine, just as the ones who claim to speak for Native Americans aren't serious - I was simply trying to make a point. According to your previous comments, your opinion regarding whether or not my "offense" is valid would be irrelevant because you're not the one supposedly being offended - only my opinion would count because I'm supposedly offended by papist references.
 
Mason66 said:
And it is a bird, and I hate birds. That makes 2 of us.
Click to expand...

Remember, hate doesn't count as an emotion in this discussion - would be better if you said "and it is a bird, and birds offend my tender sensibilities".
 
CanadaJohn said:
Remember, hate doesn't count as an emotion in this discussion - would be better if you said "and it is a bird, and birds offend my tender sensibilities".
Click to expand...

Maybe, but hate seems to be the best word here. I don't have tender sensibilities. I hate birds for many reasons.

I wish my 3 cats were hunters. Maybe I should stop feeding them so they would eat more birds.
 
Mason66 said:
1 player? Is there another almost white sport out there?
Click to expand...
That was one player from the 60's and do we HAVE to be serious about this???
 
I think "Chiefs" is a stupid name. You can't have a team of Chiefs. They should rename it to "Chief and the braves". Or maybe just "Chefs". It rolls of the tongue better.
 
Montecresto said:
A 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey question on whether the name of the Washington Redskins is offensive to Native Americans is in the news amid renewed national debate over whether the pro football team should change its name. In a letter to fans published in the Washington Post on Wednesday, Oct. 9, team owner Daniel Snyder cited the survey as key evidence in support of the name. “The highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center polled nearly 1,000 self-identified Native Americans from across the continental U.S. and found that 90% of Native Americans did not find the team name ‘Washington Redskins’ to be ‘offensive,’ ” Snyder wrote.

‘Redskins’ question in 2004 Annenberg study cited anew in controversy – The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur#1e9uhmb
Click to expand...

Unless I missed it, I didn't see in either of your links any kind of explanation for the shift in opinion, except for the possibly revealing tidbit that the original poll didn't include Hawaii and, particularly significantly, Alaska.
 
The Sioux name was divisive (even among the Sioux tribes), but what especially inflamed the situation was the inherent hypocrisy of the administration and the Sioux fans claiming that the name honored and respected the tribe, while there was (and is) a serious racial divide and hostility on the campus. It was difficult to claim it was such an honor when thick racism was not hard to find among the Minnesotan and North Dakotan student body attending the campus (let alone the greater North Dakotan society). I can straight up declare that racial problems between whites and the native population is huge here. To say it did not play a big factor in the culture war over the logo or the name is ridiculous.

At the time, it was largely a money issue that became tangled with a culture war. Eventually when it became clear that the NCAA was not going to give in, both the Engelstad Foundation and the University had to move on. I personally did not care about the logo or the name itself (had the hypocrisy not been there, I would have been fine with both remaining, provided there was no serious punishment from the NCAA), but I found the amount of money and political capital being used to maintain a logo and a name at the same time as being denied hosting tournaments to be completely counterproductive for the community and the University. I was happy to see the logo and the name go so both the University and the city could move on and make more money.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So to you this is all about politics that you do not agree with?
Click to expand...

Where did you see in my comment that I felt that this was about politics that I did not believe in?

I am not like others - I don't automatically throw around, "Them damn libruls," or "Those crazy CONservatives" if somebody says something I don't believe in.
 
Mason66 said:
It is a case of "life has become too easy and they have nothing better to do"
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think that life has become too easy for them. Lots of Native Americans still have it really, really hard.

I do think that some slick-talking snake-oil salesman came along and sold them a bill of goods, and they believed him.
 
Superfly said:
Oh, I don't think that life has become too easy for them. Lots of Native Americans still have it really, really hard.

I do think that some slick-talking snake-oil salesman came along and sold them a bill of goods, and they believed him.
Click to expand...

Some yes, but not the ones complaining.
 
Cardinal said:
I know it wasn't serious, and that's why I didn't feel it was necessary to seriously address it.



Hmmm...I'm no copyright/trademark lawyer, but I don't see how that's going to hold up on appeal.
Click to expand...

I agree - seems free speech these days is only free if it's also agreed with and supported by the loudest, most powerful voices.
 
Mason66 said:
Here is what I find odd.

The US government took action against the name Redskins. If the same group complained, for whatever reason, about the name of the state of Indiana, would the US government take action against the state?

Their name is Indian related.
Click to expand...

Or Oklahoma, which translates to "red people" (okla=people, humma=red).
 
Mason66 said:
Some yes, but not the ones complaining.
Click to expand...

Most yes, refer to my earlier posts, the ones complaining are stupid, yet hardly a single percent of the native population in the Americas I would argue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom