And you thought Redskins is offensive....

[HumanCockroach]

Are you serious. I notice you went ahead and SKIPPED what I we referring to ( the actual you know... POST about claims I never made).

As for the acting like a child. You certainly backed that up, didn't you? Bravo.

[burrrton]

Are you serious. I notice you went ahead and SKIPPED what I we referring to ( the actual you know... POST about claims I never made).

As for the acting like a child. You certainly backed that up, didn't you? Bravo.

Oh for chrissakes- LOL. Ok, you win, HC - I literally did a spit-take.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry, was that supposed to be a joke? Satire doesn't really come through in posts. I apologize if that was the meaning, but it wouldn't be the first time someone took part of my post to attempt to make a point.

The "child" statement was in regards to name calling, nothing more. I thought that was understood, was it not somehow?

[burrrton]

The "child" statement was in regards to name calling, nothing more. I thought that was understood, was it not somehow?

AH. No- I thought you were referring to my stance on "Redskins" and the whole settlers vs NAs thing.

Sorry for the mixup.

[HumanCockroach]

No, I apologize. I thought it was clear, it obviously wasn't.

I have no horses in the race on the whole thing. Truthfully, as I've said many times, words can't hurt you unless you allow them to. I don't care if they change the Damn thing. I just differ on whether or not it can be viewed as offensive. I agree that it is indeed a slur, but don't feel it's a "big deal". I just differ in the idea that even if a small percentage of people are offended by a slur, than maybe that slur shouldn't be slapped on shirts, hats and paraphernalia as well as promoted and defended.

I would feel the same with any slur ( even one used to describe my ethnicity) Words aren't anything but words. That said, I'm certainly not "everyone" nor do I have any desire to be so. Just because I'm not offended, doesn't mean no one else shouldn't have that right. Nor shouldn't have the right to say something about it.

I don't worry about PC bullsh#t. I treat everybody the same, try to be respectful, and if I do offend them, I don't feel to big to say I'm sorry. Just kind of feel like there's no "good" reason to keep the name, why not change it? They certainly wouldn't be the first professional Washington franchise to do so.

[burrrton]

I don't care if they change the Damn thing. I just differ on whether or not it can be viewed as offensive. I agree that it is indeed a slur, but don't feel it's a "big deal". I just differ in the idea that even if a small percentage of people are offended by a slur, than maybe that slur shouldn't be slapped on shirts, hats and paraphernalia as well as promoted and defended.

I don't think we disagree on it all that much, HC.

I think I disagree slightly on how clear it is that it's a absolutely-no-question a racist slur, but I agree wholeheartedly that if it were *me*, I'd be inclined to change it based just on the nature of the word and the # of people arguing against it.

And I ALSO think Snyder would be more inclined to agree with us if we hadn't stumbled into this asinine era of people shitting the bed and demanding satisfaction for stupid sht like the stuff we've been reading about for the last 10 years (let me know if you want links- they're endless).

It's gotten so ridiculous and beyond parody that nobody reacts to things that are (at least arguably) legitimately derogatory (or even react negatively, as I admit I've done from time to time).

[burrrton]

Stumbled across this reading the news this morning and thought it worth bumping an old thread for:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ne ... story.html

I won't call it dispositive, but it backs up earlier polling (poll?) so is an interesting data point to consider.

The money quote:

“The big picture is that [the poll’s finding] is totally opposite from my experience since the 1960s of where native peoples are today. And I know that from having a huge extended family in Oklahoma, in Nevada, in various states and across tribal lines. I know it from working with people who evaluate this kind of thing in their home communities.”

In other words, she feels her anecdotes trump the data, however valid. Surprise!

[RiverDog]

Stumbled across this reading the news this morning and thought it worth bumping an old thread for:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ne ... story.html

I won't call it dispositive, but it backs up earlier polling (poll?) so is an interesting data point to consider.

The money quote:

“The big picture is that [the poll’s finding] is totally opposite from my experience since the 1960s of where native peoples are today. And I know that from having a huge extended family in Oklahoma, in Nevada, in various states and across tribal lines. I know it from working with people who evaluate this kind of thing in their home communities.”

In other words, she feels her anecdotes trump the data, however valid. Surprise!

The poll may be opposite of her experience, but it lines up exactly with that of mine. No matter how the poll was conducted, 90% is damn hard to argue with. When was the last time that you saw 90% of respondents agree with a poll question?

If only 9% of NA's feel that the term Redskins is offensive, what would you guess the percentage of those that feel the term Missionaries is offensive?

This is political correctness run amok.

[burrrton]

If only 9% of NA's feel that the term Redskins is offensive, what would you guess the percentage of those that feel the term Missionaries is offensive?

0.00%, rounding up.

This is political correctness run amok.

Yep. But it's the "men are fine in the ladies rooms" thing broke the back of this camel, I'm afraid. Overestimating your hand isn't limited to the far left nuts, but this one's on them.

[RiverDog]

Yep. But it's the "men are fine in the ladies rooms" thing broke the back of this camel, I'm afraid. Overestimating your hand isn't limited to the far left nuts, but this one's on them, I'm afraid.

I don't see a relationship with mascot names and unisex restrooms. They're two completely separate and distinct issues IMO. I'm with the right wing nuts on nicknames and with the bed wetting liberals on unisex restrooms.

That's one of the reasons I consider myself a social moderate. I don't line up behind an issue simply because the position is considered to be liberal or conservative. Each issue stands on it's own merits. Not that I'm accusing you of doing the opposite.

[RiverDog]

Holy cow, I just read an article in ESPN about the same poll, and came across this gem of a quote:

"Social science research and first hand experience has told us that this kind of denigration has both visible and unseen consequences for Native Americans in this country. This is especially the case for children, who were not polled and who are in a particularly vulnerable position to be bullied by the NFL. It is the 21st century -- it is long overdue for Native Americans to be treated not as mascots or targets of slurs, but instead as equals."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15608 ... -post-poll

Children are being bullied by the NFL?

If these self appointed spokesmen agree to accept the findings and STFU if the results come back that kids don't consider the term "Redskins" to be offensive, then I'd call their bluff and run a poll of NA grade schoolers ages 7-12. Of course, most kids won't even understand what the term "offensive" means, except as it relates to football.

[burrrton]

I'm with the right wing nuts on nicknames and with the bed wetting liberals on unisex restrooms.

You'd be with them on unisex bathrooms (and so would I) if that's what they were asking for. It's not, and in fact in every instance I've read where that's been offered, they've explicitly rejected such accommodations (it "stigmatizes" the little snowflakes).

Not sure why I have to keep repeating this: the push is for boys and men to be able to use the girls' and women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and any other 'sex specific' facility. They want to force you to go along with the delusion that merely *saying* you're a woman actually makes you a woman, chromosomes and genitalia be damned.

I don't line up behind an issue simply because the position is considered to be liberal or conservative. Each issue stands on it's own merits. Not that I'm accusing you of doing the opposite.

I know you're not accusing me, but I don't line up lock-step with either side, either. I think this is just a case where you're not actually familiar with what's being argued, by which I mean no offense, only that you and Bob are both arguing positions ("I don't mind pooping in front of people, but showers are different", "unisex bathrooms are fine with me", etc) no one is taking.

[burrrton]

Children are being bullied by the NFL?

No, but "think of the children" is what you retreat to when you're running out of arguments.

[RiverDog]

Not sure why I have to keep repeating this: the push is for boys and men to be able to use the girls' and women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and any other 'sex specific' facility. They want to force you to go along with the delusion that merely *saying* you're a woman actually makes you a woman, chromosomes and genitalia be damned.

I know you're not accusing me, but I don't line up lock-step with either side, either. I think this is just a case where you're not actually familiar with what's being argued, by which I mean no offense, only that you and Bob are both arguing positions ("I don't mind pooping in front of people, but showers are different", "unisex bathrooms are fine with me", etc) no one is taking.

I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but I draw the line between open, communal showers and public toilets that are semi private (ie stalls...not the ones at Twigs or The Pub). I would be against any legislation that did not specifically mention that exclusion and that did not include a strict definition of the term "semi private".

Oh, sorry about dragging an OT subject into the general forum, but this place has been REALLY slow since the draft.

[RiverDog]

No (children aren't being bullied by the NFL), but "think of the children" is what you retreat to when you're running out of arguments.

Ain't that the truth. The other thing that happens when one runs out of arguments or if the facts don't support their position is to start in with the personal insults and name calling. "You're just a hateful red necked bigot looking for a poll to hide behind"...or something like that.

[burrrton]

You have to keep repeating it because nobody else draws that line- you seem to be operating under the assumption that any of these politically correct nuts agree with you. They're not for any of the things you are, yet you seem to be loosely defending these efforts.

I don't mean to be accusing you of anything if that's not the case, though. Maybe we just don't differ much and you're just debating what you find a more interesting argument. *My* beef is with what Target, Obama, and HB2 opponents are pushing: men in women's facilities.

[HumanCockroach]

Well the great news is based on a completely unverifiable pool done by a newspaper only between 540,000+ are offended by the name ( only 10%) of course that is only the Native Americans that are verified, could be more.

But hey, what's half a million people?

[burrrton]

What if we could only find a single Native American who considered the term offensive, HC? Wouldn't that still be enough if your attitude is "So what if it's only a small percentage?"

(you should also know that this poll is as "verifiable" as any poll that allows respondents to self-identify, which is most, and that the WaPo is a well-respected polling outfit- they're not new to this)

[RiverDog]

Well the great news is based on a completely unverifiable pool done by a newspaper only between 540,000+ are offended by the name ( only 10%) of course that is only the Native Americans that are verified, could be more.
One by
But hey, what's half a million people?

So how can a poll be "verified" to satisfy you? FYI it wasn't the WP that conducted the poll, they only sponsored it. The actual sampling, data collection, and tabulation was done by a firm called SSRS that's in the business of conducting polls on a variety of subjects. Here's how they did it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ho ... ?tid=a_inl

If the results were only 55% or 60%, you might be able to convince me that the results were not reflective of the overall attitude held by NA's. But not when it's 90% and done by a reputable firm such as this one was. The poll was as legitimate as polls get.

The other fact that supports these results is that they are almost the exact same findings as a poll conducted 12 years ago on the same subject. How often are you going to get 90% of the respondents to agree on anything?

[HumanCockroach]

LOL a higher percentage per your guys poll find the name offensive than numerous other demographics that have protection against the use of slurs but it isn't enough of an amount to do away with the name of a football team? OK. Got it.

[RiverDog]

LOL a higher percentage per your guys poll find the name offensive than numerous other demographics that have protection against the use of slurs but it isn't enough of an amount to do away with the name of a football team? OK. Got it.

Say what?

You're saying that there's a higher percentage of blacks that don't think the 'N' word is offensive than NA's feel about Redskins?

Sorry for being so slow, but you need to run that one past me again.

[burrrton]

LOL a higher percentage per your guys poll find the name offensive than numerous other demographics that have protection against the use of slurs but it isn't enough of an amount to do away with the name of a football team? OK. Got it.

I can tell there's an assertion (or two) in there, and you seem to be asking a rhetorical question, but I've read this a dozen times and I can't tell any of that for sure, HC.

[edit]

I guess I *can* see you think there are enough people that consider it a slur that everyone should think the name should go away?

If so, I'll ask again: what % is enough to consider it an actual slur rather than merely something a small % take offense to (with consideration given to the culture we live in, where everything up to and including your Cheerios have been called "RAAAAAACIST!" by someone)?

The question at hand is whether the term is an actual slur or just something a handful of people have decided should be a slur, and in that context, considering both the etymology (not feelings) of the word and polling, it's not looking like there's much of an argument.

[edit2]

What RD said is a good point to consider, too: you couldn't get 90% of respondents in this pampered country to agree freaking *communism* should be viewed negatively- why is this poll result not welcomed as something demonstrating we can move on to worrying about actual problems instead of dwelling on these scab-picking issues that don't matter an iota?

[HumanCockroach]

Good Lord RD there is more demographics than simply black people. I'm not really interested in hand feeding you all of them. Start with homosexuals and work from there....

I absolutely agree there are "real" issues, however, changing the name of a football team, isn't an issue ( either for or against IMHO. Enough people find it offensive, so change it and move on. Doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as either side is making it. Strange to me that so many have drawn this of all things as "the line in the sand", on BOTH sides of it ( despite the insistence of many to claim it's a PC argument, the argue just as passionately against it. To the point of attempting to "prove" the non offensive nature of a racists nickname). Ultimately it offends people, and is just a name, hundreds and thousands have been changed for various reasons, with LESS reason to do so.

[RiverDog]

Good Lord RD there is more demographics than simply black people. I'm not really interested in hand feeding you all of them. Start with homosexuals and work from there....

I'm trying to wrap my mind around your logic, HC. But rather than using a demographical group of which I do not belong to, perhaps using as a reasonable analogy a perceived slur directed at a group of which I am a member of I'd be more likely to understand what your point is.

I'm a 61 year old male, and let's suppose a poll was taken of 60+ males over whether or not the term "old man" is offensive to them and make what I would consider to be a fair assumption, that 9% of the respondents considered the use of that term to be offensive. Does that mean I should sympathize with that 9%, join them in denouncing the use of that term?

[RiverDog]

What RD said is a good point to consider, too: you couldn't get 90% of respondents in this pampered country to agree freaking *communism* should be viewed negatively- why is this poll result not welcomed as something demonstrating we can move on to worrying about actual problems instead of dwelling on these scab-picking issues that don't matter an iota?

You can't get 90% of Americans to agree that the moon landings actually happened:

In the July 1999 poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) do not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo moon landing. Only 6% of the public believes the landing was faked and another 5% have no opinion.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1993/did-men ... -moon.aspx

[burrrton]

Enough people find it offensive, so change it and move on.

Is that easier than going with "Most people *don't* find it offensive, so get over it and move on"?

[c_hawkbob]

Enough people find it offensive, so change it and move on.

Is that easier than going with "Most people *don't* find it offensive, so get over it and move on"?

Option one will put an end to it, option two will keep it an issue forever.

[burrrton]

Option one will put an end to it, option two will keep it an issue forever.

If you assume they're incapable of getting over it and moving on, sure. I prefer to assume they're not so emotionally stunted, though.

Also, what makes you think the supporters, who by all measures appear to vastly outnumber the opponents, would sit idly by with option one?

[RiverDog]

Option one would put an end to it....

...until the next nickname debate. We've been having these nickname controversies for close to half a century, starting with the Stanford Indians back in the late 60's, so there's absolutely nothing to suggest that changing the Redskins name would satisfy the PC beast. What makes you think that the Kansas City Chiefs, the Cleveland Indians, or Golden State Warriors won't be forced by the PC police to change their nicknames? I mean, if they're going to b**** about nicknames like Missionaries and Pioneers, what nickname is safe?

[HumanCockroach]

Again who exactly was complaining about missionaries or pioneers? Based on your link, they decided to change their name of their own accord. You're attempting to draw a parallel that doesn't exist.

[burrrton]

You're attempting to draw a parallel that doesn't exist.

It's a different situation, but it's the same attitude that led to both efforts: finding offense (or "inappropriateness") in virtually everything.

It is better with Whitman in that at least they can cite a majority opinion, and of alumni/faculty/students, but that doesn't make the opinion any less ridiculous.

[RiverDog]

Again who exactly was complaining about missionaries or pioneers? Based on your link, they decided to change their name of their own accord. You're attempting to draw a parallel that doesn't exist.

Well, it wasn't NA's that were complaining, that's for sure. It almost never is, at least not from any grass roots NA movements. It's always white do-gooders or ultra sensitive NA's looking for their 15 seconds of fame that are supposedly "offended".

But the fact that Whitman is changing their nickname wasn't the point I was making. The point was that the terms "Missionaries" and 'Pioneer" was thought by some to be offensive, and if there's people out there that are offended by those terms, they almost assuredly would be offended by Chiefs, Warriors, and/or Indians.

I don't have a problem with Whitman changing the name, especially when you consider other rationale that respondents in their survey gave as their justification for their answers in favor of the change, which included comments like it did not inspire their athletic teams, was quirky or weird, it was a non secular term and Whitman is a secular institution, etc. What I have the problem with is those that feel the terms "Missionaries" and "Pioneers" is offensive and non inclusive.

If they're changing the nickname "Missionaries" because it's non inclusive, then why shouldn't all non Christians rise up against nicknames like the San Diego Padres and New Orleans Saints? If you have to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, then what's stopping a vocal minority from objecting to Padres and Saints?

[HumanCockroach]

It's a different situation, but it's the same attitude that led to both efforts: finding offense (or "inappropriateness") in virtually everything

In what way? In one instance you have a university polling it's own alumni, students and faculty on the other side you have a team with a name that is a racial slur ( whether you want to agree with it or not). The two situations are completely different and certainly not a parallel. Schools and teams change their names for various reasons, whether it be because it's a crappy mascot like the Missionary's or a mascot that the owner feels doesn't sell enough paraphernalia, or one that they feel promotes violence ( Bullets) or simply a team that has moved.

All name changes don't occur because of the political correctness you are attempting to attribute this to.

Honestly, it seems to me this has a hell of a lot more to do with people adamantly opposed to a politically correct argumen than any type of actual belief that the name Redskins isn't a racial slur. Hence the "line drawn" comment earlier.

A term that has been used as a slur, whether it "started" out that way or not, shouldn't be marketed and lauded. It has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with common decency.

Just like I would say the same about the Salem Fags ( a cigarette). It is something that has been used to negatively used to describe a demographic of American citizens, and doesn't belong being slapped on hats, jerseys and banners. It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

[RiverDog]

In what way? In one instance you have a university polling it's own alumni, students and faculty on the other side you have a team with a name that is a racial slur ( whether you want to agree with it or not). The two situations are completely different and certainly not a parallel. Schools and teams change their names for various reasons, whether it be because it's a crappy mascot like the Missionary's or a mascot that the owner feels doesn't sell enough paraphernalia, or one that they feel promotes violence ( Bullets) or simply a team that has moved.

All name changes don't occur because of the political correctness you are attempting to attribute this to.

Honestly, it seems to me this has a hell of a lot more to do with people adamantly opposed to a politically correct argumen than any type of actual belief that the name Redskins isn't a racial slur. Hence the "line drawn" comment earlier.

A term that has been used as a slur, whether it "started" out that way or not, shouldn't be marketed and lauded. It has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with common decency.

Just like I would say the same about the Salem Fags ( a cigarette). It is something that has been used to negatively used to describe a demographic of American citizens, and doesn't belong being slapped on hats, jerseys and banners. It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

It doesn't matter one iota that you or me thinks that "Redskins" is a racial slur or not. If we are to put any weight at all into the WP poll (and polls done before it that produced the exact same results), the vast majority of NA's aren't offended by it, so let's stop pretending that it is. And what do you think the reaction from those advocating a change would have been if Snyder did what Whitman College did, and ran his own poll, and came up with similar results that the Washington Post did? They wouldn't have believed those results anymore than they'd believe that there's a Man-in-the-Moon...not that they would be anymore graceful in accepting the results of past polls.

As far as name changes go, yes, there's more than just those done for PC reasons. Some do it when the franchise moves and they want a new identity, such as the Oilers-Titans, or due to some legal or financial agreement, such as Browns-Ravens or Sonics-Thunder. The Jets were once the Titans and changed their name when a new owner took over looking for a more marketable nickname. But that's not the point.

My point, at least as far as this thread goes, isn't the name change so much as it is the revisionist history that's involved and the fact that certain terms are considered by some to be offensive. Marcus Whitman and his missionaries, who were at peace with the NA's, were murdered by them, and the way they are making it sound, you would think that Whitman was a 19th century Adolph Hitler. To be fair, the NA's may very well have felt justified, but murder is murder no matter what the motive and their actions triggered a war. Same thing goes with the term "Pioneers". Hell, Charles Lindbergh and Neil Armstrong were Pioneers, were they not? It's that line of thinking that I feel is absurd and that I'll call out when I see it.

[RiverDog]

Here's a quote I found buried in the middle of one of the hyperlinks in this story. The background is that the Redskins are looking for a new stadium site and are considering returning to the District of Columbia from their Maryland home. Here's what one of the DC city council members had to say about the name change proposal:

But Council member David Grosso (I-At Large), who wrote the 2013 city resolution that demanded the name be changed, said he is unmoved (by the poll results).

“If even a couple people feel it’s offensive, then I think the name should be changed,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/na ... ?tid=a_inl

So essentially, what he's saying is to hell with the democratic process in which the majority rules. If I can get just a couple people to agree with me, then change should occur...and this is coming from an elected official! It's that type of crapola that I'll call out when I see it.

[burrrton]

on the other side you have a team with a name that is a racial slur ( whether you want to agree with it or not).

LOL. Uh, HC, I know you like to keep stating this as if it's fact, but this is precisely what's under debate. History doesn't make this clear, and Native Americans themselves say you're wrong.

Better find a different line of attack if you want to force everyone else to coddle your attitudes.

The two situations are completely different and certainly not a parallel.

In the way that I stated, yes they are. You just don't want to admit it.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

Funny- we were thinking the same thing.

[burrrton]

“If even a couple people feel it’s offensive, then I think the name should be changed,” he said.

Worse, you know this council member is completely full of sht (he isn't changing squat if you and I show up and tell him we feel, say, the name of their building is offensive). He's just desperate to justify his virtual signaling.

[NorthHawk]

For those of you that believe it's OK to use a term that some feel is offensive, if you were on a team or at a party where some of the people (who the term is directed at) felt what you were saying was offensive, and others didn't, would you still use the term? Would you go out of your way to insult someone to their face?
Just curious as I don't understand this desire to continue to insult someone - when alternatives are so easily found.

[HumanCockroach]

Any word used as a negative description of an entire group of humans is a slur, whether it was originally intended as one or not. I'm not looking for anyone to coddle my feelings, as I really don't have any, and I've made that pretty clear throughout this entire thread. Just because I can see a slur, doesn't mean I have feelings about it. If I don't care about the slurs directed at my own race, why would I give a flying fig about another races?

You keep attempting to paint me as some sort of PC warrior Burton, and despite your continued efforts in that regard, I'm simply not. Just because I don't feel it necessary to stand my ground at all costs no matter the word being used, doesn't mean I'm offended or actively seeking some sort of change.

I'm an impartial outsider who is only filling time until some football starts. Just because I can see the racial term, doesn't mean that I'm invested in the eventual outcome. I really don't care one way or the other ( why should I? I'm not native American and based on the fact that I "own" my own races slur I seriously doubt I would be offended in any way) about the word, doesn't mean that I'm blind to it.

[burrrton]

For those of you that believe it's OK to use a term that some feel is offensive, if you were on a team or at a party where some of the people (who the term is directed at) felt what you were saying was offensive, and others didn't, would you still use the term?

Depends- is it a term for which the history is unclear and for which the vast majority of those it's supposed to offend claim it's nothing of the sort?

Either way, though, comparing interpersonal communication with something like this is nonsense- we don't refer to individuals at parties with us in such generalizations. I'm going to refer to them by name. I wouldn't say "Hey, Indian, do you need another drink?", nor "Someone want to ask Seminole what he put in this fondue?"

Yeah, if someone said to me "I don't like that name", I'd stop using it, but I'd do the same for someone telling me they don't like to go by "Herb".

Just curious as I don't understand this desire to continue to insult someone - when alternatives are so easily found.

You're doing what HC is and assuming the problem lies with the name and not with those claiming to be offended.