• 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!

Redskins Name Lawsuit Heard By Federal Board

Still would love to hear the opinion on all those individuals who are in favor of the Redskins caving to public pressure, or being legally forced, to change their name in regards to The Buffalo Bills....the team named after an individual who did more to further the stereotype of the face painted, headress wearing, savage who's the last threat to civilization than arguably any other single individual and who also had a significant hand in the decimation of the American Bison that was so integral to the lives of many Native American tribes.
 
I don't rightly look towards my HR department in a government agency for my guidance on what is wrong or right in a society. HR, be it government or private, is focused on covering the ass of the company from even the threat of potential legal action being taken or even a hit to public image...not necessarily giving a damn about what is or isn't offensive to a group of people.

Sounds like Washington's football team needs an HR dept. :lol:

Did you really just say, "...even a hit to public image...not necessarily giving a damn about what is or isn't offensive to a group of people."? How can you worry about public image while not caring about offending people?
 
Absolutely, that's an issue they face. On top of that, they face the fact that the little bit of a "****" people seem to give them...such as the douches here in the Washington media...is concern over the name of a sports team that every poll I've seen suggests a majority have no issue with. Meanwhile unemployment is over 90% on reservations, rape is ridiculously common place, elder and child abuse is widespread, amongst other far, FAR greater issues than the name of a Football team. But those causes are a lot harder, a lot more difficult, and a lot less gratifying to the ego of those constantly needing to find a new "Cause" than changing the name of said football team.

You forgot alcoholism on reservations too. In fact, alcoholism has a hand in those other issues on reservations. Sure, there are other problems that need attention. That doesn't take away from the fact that they could change their name back to the Braves in order to protect their public image. I think you know it's inappropriate to refer to Native Americans as "redskins".
 
Still would love to hear the opinion on all those individuals who are in favor of the Redskins caving to public pressure, or being legally forced, to change their name in regards to The Buffalo Bills....the team named after an individual who did more to further the stereotype of the face painted, headress wearing, savage who's the last threat to civilization than arguably any other single individual and who also had a significant hand in the decimation of the American Bison that was so integral to the lives of many Native American tribes.

Do you have any data on how people named "Bill" feel about it? :lol:

Seriously, calling someone "Bill" is less offensive than calling them "redskin". But yes, being named for "Buffalo Bill" is a poor choice given the history.
 
You forgot alcoholism on reservations too. In fact, alcoholism has a hand in those other issues on reservations. Sure, there are other problems that need attention. That doesn't take away from the fact that they could change their name back to the Braves in order to protect their public image. I think you know it's inappropriate to refer to Native Americans as "redskins".

Considering the fact that res life involves stagnation, unemployment, education problems; drug use, alcoholism, sexual assault, poverty, domestic violence, etc...one might think there were greater concerns for the people than what a sports teams name is or if a handful of politically correct white people pretended to give a **** about their problems. But that's just an opinion.
 
Still would love to hear the opinion on all those individuals who are in favor of the Redskins caving to public pressure, or being legally forced, to change their name in regards to The Buffalo Bills....the team named after an individual who did more to further the stereotype of the face painted, headress wearing, savage who's the last threat to civilization than arguably any other single individual and who also had a significant hand in the decimation of the American Bison that was so integral to the lives of many Native American tribes.
I did not know the Bills were named after Cody. Hmmm, learn something new everyday.

As a side note: I did come across this and found it interesting... History of NFL Team Names


You forgot alcoholism on reservations too. In fact, alcoholism has a hand in those other issues on reservations. Sure, there are other problems that need attention. That doesn't take away from the fact that they could change their name back to the Braves in order to protect their public image. I think you know it's inappropriate to refer to Native Americans as "redskins".
I have zero faith that the people who are complaining and/or filing lawsuits against the Redskins name would be satisfied with the name Braves.
 
I have zero faith that the people who are complaining and/or filing lawsuits against the Redskins name would be satisfied with the name Braves.

You may be right. I don't mind the Braves. I think Redskins is controversial. There is nothing to gain by keeping it, only by changing it can they gain positive PR.
 
I did not know the Bills were named after Cody. Hmmm, learn something new everyday.

As a side note: I did come across this and found it interesting... History of NFL Team Names



I have zero faith that the people who are complaining and/or filing lawsuits against the Redskins name would be satisfied with the name Braves.

I think the key would be working out a deal directly with a tribes leaders. Pick out a bad ass tribe and figure out what to trade each other. Then if anyone goes wrong everyone can blame the Native-American leaders. :p Native-Americans can end up getting a college or stadium or TV coverage for Native-American awareness or whatever the heck they want. Team owners could have a "trophy" to flaunt on TV about how much they help and what native-americans they specifically got into a team or what not. I dunno these are pretty crummy, quickly thought up examples but im pretty sure both sides could benefit from this somehow.
 
Do you have any data on how people named "Bill" feel about it? :lol:

Seriously, calling someone "Bill" is less offensive than calling them "redskin". But yes, being named for "Buffalo Bill" is a poor choice given the history.

Calling someone bill is irrelevant to my point since I wasn't suggesting the term "bill" is offensive (to anyone but Hillary Clinton)
 
Calling someone bill is irrelevant to my point since I wasn't suggesting the term "bill" is offensive (to anyone but Hillary Clinton)

Bill isn't a disparaging term. That is my point. What is your point? They shouldn't be talking about this because children are starving in the Sudan. They should be more upset about Bill Cody being the namesake because he was no friend to the Native Americans? That may be true, but it doesn't whitewash the term "redskin".
 
Bill isn't a disparaging term. That is my point. What is your point?

My point was furthering the notion that many of those in the media and public bitching about the Redskins names are doing so mostly because it's a "feel good cause" that they can feel warm and fuzzy over because it takes no significant thought or any legitimate effort on their part to actually look at in any kind of objective or curious manner. People like to throw out that the Redskins name should change because in the past team employees wore headdresses and some fans still do and it creates a cartoonish caricature of native americans. Meanwhile, most completely are oblivious to a team that is actually named in honor of the man who arguably had the biggest influence in american history of creating the caricature of the "savage indian".

I wasn't suggesting that calling someone a "Bill" is offensive. I was suggesting that based on some of the arguments against the Redskins name, one should likely say the Bills name is also offensive since it's named after a man who rose to fame in large part for massively perpetuating some of those same "offensive" things.

They shouldn't be talking about this because children are starving in the Sudan. They should be more upset about Bill Cody being the namesake because he was no friend to the Native Americans? That may be true, but it doesn't whitewash the term "redskin".

To be frank it seems to be whites trying to "whitewash" Redskins into a significant and offensive racial slur, seeing how the majority of the native american population seem to think differently. As I said, I'd be happy to see any evidence to the contrary. Forgive me if I don't believe you, or others, are better apt to dictate what should be offensive to Native Americans than the majority of themselves. Attempting to toss out emotional charged words like "Whitewashing" isn't proving your point...it only exemplifies the seeming belief of knowing "better" than the majority of Native Americans on what they should feel.

My comments regarding the plight of Native American's and the massive issues within the community was not aimed at suggesting the Redskins shouldn't change their name. There's multiple reasons why I think they shouldn't, that's not one of them. That comment, as I made perfectly clear if you read my post, was aimed more at the MOTIVATION and MENTALITY of many of those that make the case that they should change their name.
 
Last edited:
Bill isn't a disparaging term. That is my point. What is your point? They shouldn't be talking about this because children are starving in the Sudan. They should be more upset about Bill Cody being the namesake because he was no friend to the Native Americans? That may be true, but it doesn't whitewash the term "redskin".
While we're at it, let's change the name of the New England Patriots, too. They... early patriots... weren't exactly the Native American's friends, either.
 
My point was furthering the notion that many of those in the media and public bitching about the Redskins names are doing so mostly because it's a "feel good cause" that they can feel warm and fuzzy over because it takes no significant thought or any legitimate effort on their part to actually look at in any kind of objective or curious manner. People like to throw out that the Redskins name should change because in the past team employees wore headdresses and some fans still do and it creates a cartoonish caricature of native americans. Meanwhile, most completely are oblivious to a team that is actually named in honor of the man who arguably had the biggest influence in american history of creating the caricature of the "savage indian".

I wasn't suggesting that calling someone a "Bill" is offensive. I was suggesting that based on some of the arguments against the Redskins name, one should likely say the Bills name is also offensive since it's named after a man who rose to fame in large part for massively perpetuating some of those same "offensive" things.

Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I don't think it respectful to refer to Native Americans as "redskins".

To be frank it seems to be whites trying to "whitewash" Redskins into a significant and offensive racial slur, seeing how the majority of the native american population seem to think differently. As I said, I'd be happy to see any evidence to the contrary. Forgive me if I don't believe you, or others, are better apt to dictate what should be offensive to Native Americans than the majority of themselves. Attempting to toss out emotional charged words like "Whitewashing" isn't proving your point...it only exemplifies the seeming belief of knowing "better" than the majority of Native Americans on what they should feel.

My comments regarding the plight of Native American's and the massive issues within the community was not aimed at suggesting the Redskins shouldn't change their name. There's multiple reasons why I think they shouldn't, that's not one of them. That comment, as I made perfectly clear if you read my post, was aimed more at the MOTIVATION and MENTALITY of many of those that make the case that they should change their name.

I think for some people "white guilt" may play a part. It's embarrassing to be associated with the genocide that took place under the guise of Manifest Destiny. It's embarrassing that the Nation that committed that genocide has a Capital that uses that term for a sports team. Your mileage may vary.
 
While we're at it, let's change the name of the New England Patriots, too. They... early patriots... weren't exactly the Native American's friends, either.

Don't forget the Cowboys too. :lol:
 
I think the key would be working out a deal directly with a tribes leaders. Pick out a bad ass tribe and figure out what to trade each other. Then if anyone goes wrong everyone can blame the Native-American leaders. :p Native-Americans can end up getting a college or stadium or TV coverage for Native-American awareness or whatever the heck they want. Team owners could have a "trophy" to flaunt on TV about how much they help and what native-americans they specifically got into a team or what not. I dunno these are pretty crummy, quickly thought up examples but im pretty sure both sides could benefit from this somehow.

One of the toughest and most powerful of the American Indian tribes were the blackfeet. But that may be too colorful as well.
 
Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I don't think it respectful to refer to Native Americans as "redskins".



I think for some people "white guilt" may play a part. It's embarrassing to be associated with the genocide that took place under the guise of Manifest Destiny. It's embarrassing that the Nation that committed that genocide has a Capital that uses that term for a sports team. Your mileage may vary.

Talk about getting mileage out of something....

How many generations does one have to go back to be considered "Native American"? And if people today feel guilty over a nation built on conquest, should the 'real' "Native Americans" feel guilt over their history of conquest, murder, the occasional bouts of cannibalism, slavery, torture of defeated warriors, etc? Or should just white people of European ancestry feel guilty about what some other white people of European ancestry did? Can you name many countries and nations NOT formed by conquest, battle, and brutality?

I'm sure the people living on the reservations today take solace in knowing that they can face a myriad of social ills but at least people really really really really 'care' about a sports teams name.
 
Talk about getting mileage out of something....

How many generations does one have to go back to be considered "Native American"? And if people today feel guilty over a nation built on conquest, should the 'real' "Native Americans" feel guilt over their history of conquest, murder, the occasional bouts of cannibalism, slavery, torture of defeated warriors, etc? Or should just white people of European ancestry feel guilty about what some other white people of European ancestry did? Can you name many countries and nations NOT formed by conquest, battle, and brutality?

I'm sure the people living on the reservations today take solace in knowing that they can face a myriad of social ills but at least people really really really really 'care' about a sports teams name.

How many lines of longitude do you have to go back to be considered "Indian"?
 
How many lines of longitude do you have to go back to be considered "Indian"?

If I'm not mistaken it is 4 (you qualify as an "Indian" if you can show 1/32). But I may be mistaken.
 
If I'm not mistaken it is 4 (you qualify as an "Indian" if you can show 1/32). But I may be mistaken.

Apparently that comment went right over your head.
 
Apparently that comment went right over your head.

Or it could be that I was just "answering" it. I have already said...in my experience the Indians on this continent typical prefer their specific tribal name but are absolutely fine and in fact prefer Indian to Native American. Apparently they accept the nation/moniker that they have carried for 500 years, despite Columbus' navigational faux pas.
 
Last edited:
How many lines of longitude do you have to go back to be considered "Indian"?

If I'm not mistaken it is 4 (you qualify as an "Indian" if you can show 1/32). But I may be mistaken.

Really, that depends how you're asking it.

I believe, in terms of recording yourself on the census and other things, one only has to feel like they should be considered native american to make it okay to place it there. To my understanding, if you want to refer to yourself as a native american you can.

In terms of actually getting registered with tribes, I believe there's various blood quantom regulations as well as typically requirements with regards to your connection or relationship with tribal customs. I believe these vary by state and by tribe.

I don't believe there is any universal official standard across the board for how one could "officially" qualify as native american. Typically one must be recognized by one of the 500+ federally recognized tribes to be regarded as native american in a legal type of sense.

Personally, I always respected and felt that the notion of adhering to the culture...rather than just blood...was of utmost importance. I'm somewhere between 1/8th and 1/16th (My grandfather, who died while my mom was younger, was said to be half mohawk...but I know blood lines can be muddled) but I'd never suggest that I'm "native american". I didn't really learn that until I was in my high school years, I've never been significantly involved with the culture/heritage, etc. I believe if I really wanted to, I could track the information down about my great grand parents and try and begin a process to get a CIB and certified under the Mohawk tribe but frankly I'd feel that'd be more disrespectful to my grandfather's heritage than NOT doing anything since it hasn't been, nor likely would be, a significant impact upon my life and heritage.
 
Really, that depends how you're asking it.

I believe, in terms of recording yourself on the census and other things, one only has to feel like they should be considered native american to make it okay to place it there. To my understanding, if you want to refer to yourself as a native american you can.

In terms of actually getting registered with tribes, I believe there's various blood quantom regulations as well as typically requirements with regards to your connection or relationship with tribal customs. I believe these vary by state and by tribe.

I don't believe there is any universal official standard across the board for how one could "officially" qualify as native american. Typically one must be recognized by one of the 500+ federally recognized tribes to be regarded as native american in a legal type of sense.

Personally, I always respected and felt that the notion of adhering to the culture...rather than just blood...was of utmost importance. I'm somewhere between 1/8th and 1/16th (My grandfather, who died while my mom was younger, was said to be half mohawk...but I know blood lines can be muddled) but I'd never suggest that I'm "native american". I didn't really learn that until I was in my high school years, I've never been significantly involved with the culture/heritage, etc. I believe if I really wanted to, I could track the information down about my great grand parents and try and begin a process to get a CIB and certified under the Mohawk tribe but frankly I'd feel that'd be more disrespectful to my grandfather's heritage than NOT doing anything since it hasn't been, nor likely would be, a significant impact upon my life and heritage.
I answered it with the 'straight up' definition, but I think his 'point' which was so cleverly disguised that I MUST have missed it, was that Columbus was off by half a planet when he mis-named the people here 'Indians'. (if that wasn't his point then his point truly did escape me). Most American Indians simply accept that Indian is what they are. It is pretty goofy to be upset about being wrongly called 'Indians' and then substitute that with "Native American" yet another benevolent gifting of title by an early explorer NOT 'native' to this land.
 
Really, that depends how you're asking it.

I believe, in terms of recording yourself on the census and other things, one only has to feel like they should be considered native american to make it okay to place it there. To my understanding, if you want to refer to yourself as a native american you can.

In terms of actually getting registered with tribes, I believe there's various blood quantom regulations as well as typically requirements with regards to your connection or relationship with tribal customs. I believe these vary by state and by tribe.

I don't believe there is any universal official standard across the board for how one could "officially" qualify as native american. Typically one must be recognized by one of the 500+ federally recognized tribes to be regarded as native american in a legal type of sense.

Personally, I always respected and felt that the notion of adhering to the culture...rather than just blood...was of utmost importance. I'm somewhere between 1/8th and 1/16th (My grandfather, who died while my mom was younger, was said to be half mohawk...but I know blood lines can be muddled) but I'd never suggest that I'm "native american". I didn't really learn that until I was in my high school years, I've never been significantly involved with the culture/heritage, etc. I believe if I really wanted to, I could track the information down about my great grand parents and try and begin a process to get a CIB and certified under the Mohawk tribe but frankly I'd feel that'd be more disrespectful to my grandfather's heritage than NOT doing anything since it hasn't been, nor likely would be, a significant impact upon my life and heritage.
Hrm.. I wonder if I could wander into the forest, start my own tribe and get it recognized after so many years as a "Native American Tribe". :D
 
Back
Top Bottom