NFL Obama Says Redskins Should Change Their Name

To clarify a few of your points nobbyiscool ;

A) I think the name will change.
but
B) My main 'problem' (and the reason I often debate the issue) is people talk as if a majority of Native Americans find it offensive, which simply is not the case. Every single piece of research and data available, from independent bodies, says that a vast majority of Native Americans are not offended by the name.

So my issue is with 'corporate white America' playing the white-mans burden card and telling Native Americans what they should & should not be offended about.

"Please don't get offended when we as a nation celebrate thanksgiving, which represents the total rape and decimation of your culture.... BUT HEY THERES A FOOTBALL TEAM WITH A NAME THAT SOME OF YOUR PEOPLE FIND OFFENSIVE SO YOU SHOULD TOTALLY CONCENTRATE ON THAT!"

Hope that makes sense
 

dart

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2005
2,882
2,690
perth
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Claremont Jets
So my issue is with 'corporate white America' playing the white-mans burden card and telling Native Americans what they should & should not be offended about.

so to clarify, you're saying the only people who are offended by it are offended because corporate white America told them to be?

is that really what you're saying?
 

dart

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2005
2,882
2,690
perth
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Claremont Jets
I honestly think it's highly more likely that a lot of native Americans have found the term offensive since it was first used - but back then no one gave a s**t, which is why they continued to use the term.

No one listened. White corporate America didn't manufacture this feeling, it was always there, but now they've belatedly decided to listen and it's taking a few people a bit longer to hear the call.

When I think back to my childhood, some of the derogatory names (and jokes) that people wouldn't think twice about calling indigenous Australians, you don't hear those any more (mostly).

I am sure those indigenous Australians were always offended by it back then, but no one gave a s**t, it has only been through education and awareness of what it's like to be on the receiving end of that that Australia has progressed (somewhat) in that area.
 
so to clarify, you're saying the only people who are offended by it are offended because corporate white America told them to be?

is that really what you're saying?

No, I'm saying that 'corporate white America' is massively overstating how "offensive" it is to Native Americans.

There's recent data from independent studies showing as many as 90% of Native Americans do not find the name offensive, but if you turned on ESPN you'd think it was closer to 90% that do find it offensive.

For example;

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins”
does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey
shows.

Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name
“offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was
plus or minus two percentage points.

[The survery] included Indians from every
state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question
that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the
Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it
bother you?”

Now, once again let me clarify my position;

I personally think the name changing is inevitable, because some Native Americans find it offensive.

What I have a problem with is people misrepresenting the issue as some sort of critically important issue that a majority of Native Americans care strongly about. That simply isn't the case. This is simply a hot topic issue because the NFL is big money and there's a lot of exposure to be gained by publically opposing the name.
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
What I have a problem with is people misrepresenting the issue as some sort of critically important issue that a majority of Native Americans care strongly about. That simply isn't the case. This is simply a hot topic issue because the NFL is big money and there's a lot of exposure to be gained by publically opposing the name.

I appreciate the effort that goes into your replies - but in this instance, ":rolleyes:" did tell a thousand words.

You continue amending your argument to create a straw man about what (you think) the issue is really about.

I've not seen anyone represent this issue as anything close to "critically important", nor have I seen anyone say that a clear majority of Native American are offended by it. The point is that if a significant number of people find something offensive, then it's offensive.

You can't tell people how to feel by using surveys.
 
The point is that if a significant number of people find something offensive, then it's offensive.

And I don't disagree. My point is arguing about the representation of the issue.

Also, what if I told you similar percentages of the populations in question found other names offensive?

There's similar stats that show Scandinavians find the misappropriation of the name 'Vikings' offensive.
The Notre Dame 'Fighting Irish' name and mascot is historically offensive to members of the Irish community.
In this very thread I've shared stories about Native Americans who are offended by the name Kansas City Chiefs, as well.

Do all these names need to change as well? Or once we've renamed the Redskins, is racism over?
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
Since you asked, Fighting Irish is offensive! But Notre Dame is probably even bigger and more stubborn than Washington, so that'll never happen. And the reality is that racism experienced by privileged white people is not seen as being serious in comparison to racism against Native Americans or African Americans because they've been oppressed for so long and have suffered for that racism. (Whether or not this is valid is something I will absolutely not buy in to.)

Comparing a respectful tip of the cap to Native American Chiefs with a name considered by many to be a racial slur is ridiculous, and its beneath the arguments that you've put forth in this thread.
 
Comparing a respectful tip of the cap to Native American Chiefs with a name considered by many to be a racial slur is ridiculous, and its beneath the arguments that you've put forth in this thread.

And this is exactly my point;

It's not up to you to decide whether the Chiefs is a 'respectful tip of the cap'. The fact is almost the same amount of Native Americans who find the name 'Redskins' offensive, find the name and imagery associated with the 'Chiefs' offensive.

That is exactly the point I am making. What frustrates me in this debate is the condescending 'white mans burden' attitude of dictating to minorities what is and isn't offensive.

You say you've worked with ATSI communities in Australia. If so, then you should know exactly what I mean.

If there is one thing minority groups hate, it's people talking at them, instead of actually listening to them.
 
Do all these names need to change as well? Or once we've renamed the Redskins, is racism over?

Because Redskins is the only one which is truly racist, the racism is literally in the name, you don't even have to apply interpretation.
 
Because Redskins is the only one which is truly racist, the racism is literally in the name, you don't even have to apply interpretation.

So only the name matters? Not the logo, the mascot, the imagery, or the misappropriation of culture?
 
Why are you listening to the minority of natives who aren't offended but ignoring the larger minority of natives who are offended?

That's a lie. You have it backwards.

Majority are not offended. Minority are.
 
So only the name matters? Not the logo, the mascot, the imagery, or the misappropriation of culture?

The name, logo, and mascot go together as the one overarching identity, they're racist before they're anything else. People can argue misappropriation of culture all they want (and you're drawing a long bow with the Vikings and ND), but the Redskins identity fails the racism test anyway, which none of the others do.
 
The name, logo, and mascot go together as the one overarching identity

Okay, so the name, logo, and mascot go together.

Therefore the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Kansas City Chiefs will be changing their names soon after the Redskins.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
Okay, so the name, logo, and mascot go together.

Therefore the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Kansas City Chiefs will be changing their names soon after the Redskins.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not familiar with the Chiefs mascot, but there's nothing wrong with their name or logo staying as is.

The Indians will probably have to change everything, but their name still isn't as explicitly racist as the Redskins one.
 
The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

Time for a separate thread GG? The very same person who you support leading the charge against the Redskins name is also opposed to the Chiefs name.

Will you acknowledge it?

No, of course not... why should we listen to Native Americans who say the Chiefs name is racist too? That's not as cool as being on the Anti-Redskins bandwagon.

uIwdrcJ.gif
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
I
Okay, so the name, logo, and mascot go together.

Therefore the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Kansas City Chiefs will be changing their names soon after the Redskins.

Thanks for clarifying.

I've already discussed my thoughts on the Chiefs, and google has shown me absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any large scale opposition to that name.

in the case of the Braves, I haven't researched that, but I would think that would be considered a tribute.

The only reason the Indians don't get the same opposition is cos they're a largely irrelevant team in a sport less popular than football. I would think many would also consider that racist, and given what a relic the term "Indian" is I would suggest it is overtly racist and will also need to be changed.
 
I

I've already discussed my thoughts on the Chiefs, and google has shown me absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any large scale opposition to that name.

If that is your barometer for when a change should be made, find me reliable evidence of a large-scale (majority) Native American opposition to the Redskins name.

(And don't quote James Fenelon's study, as it's been heavily debunked as having cherry picked respondents and not making the findings available for peer-review).
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
If that is your barometer for when a change should be made, find me reliable evidence of a large-scale (majority) Native American opposition to the Redskins name.

(And don't quote James Fenelon's study, as it's been heavily debunked as having cherry picked respondents and not making the findings available for peer-review).

As I said last night - and as you agreed at the time - it doesn't have to be a majority of people. It doesn't even have to be close to a majority.

As I also said last night, the suggestion by Washington officials and fans that it needs to be a majority to validate those who are offended is absolute bullshit. Once again, if a significant number of people find it offensive, then it's offensive.

And once again, you're creating straw man arguments. No one has been talking about it needing to be a majority of people one way or the other except you.

In the case of Washington, large scale opposition is easy to find. In the case of the Chiefs, it is close to non-existent. I can't find any evidence that a significant number of people find it offensive.
 
Woah woah woah, hang on nobbyiscool - you ignored the premise of my question and answered something I didn't ask. No where have I seen Redskins fans, myself included, saying that "it needs to be a majority to validate those who are offended". In fact, I specifically agreed with you that the name will change BECAUSE a minority are offended.

What I am pointing out is the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the rationale put forth by you, GG, Fyfie, etc.

Here, i'll show you what I mean.

Your own words, direct quote from last night;

nobbyiscool said:
The real point is that if this name causes significant hurt and upset to a significant number of people (and clearly it does) then its inappropriate and it needs to be changed. It doesn't have to be a majority. It doesn't even have to be close to a majority.

So in your own words, you say that if a name causes a group of people offense, even if it is not even "close to a majority", then "it needs to be changed".

Well, earlier today I showed you direct quotes from the very same Native American solicitor who lodged the appeal against the Redskins trademark that shows she and her people also consider the KC Chiefs name and imagery racist.

So, considering your own words from earlier in this thread, care to try again?
 
Back