I don't even care if it's a derogatory or non-derogatory term.
I can't be the only one who thinks it's odd to use a group of people as a team name. How weird would it be to have the Washington Black People or the Washington Asians or the Washington Latinos? This is why I also take issue with the Cleveland Indians and any number of teams similarly named.
Numbers of people who want the name changed don't matter. When segregation was at its height, do you think that the percentage of people favoring integration was high? When slavery was at its height, do you think that the percentage of people favoring freeing the slaves was high?
No progress would be made if the majority or status quo always wins.
There are so many examples of teams being named after groups of people. The Irish, the Quakers, Demon Deacons, the Fighting Christians, etc. So I don't think it's odd.
The mere fact that a practice is prevalent or pervasive doesn't make it right.
There are so many examples of teams being named after groups of people. The Irish, the Quakers, Demon Deacons, the Fighting Christians, etc. So I don't think it's odd.
The mere fact that a practice is prevalent or pervasive doesn't make it right.
"Come on! Everybody's doing it!"
No.
I didn't argue that because it's popular, it's good. "What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular." I just argued that it isn't odd, by which I meant it's not uncommon.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
The mere fact that a practice is prevalent or pervasive doesn't make it right.
"Come on! Everybody's doing it!"
No.
I didn't argue that because it's popular, it's good. "What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular." I just argued that it isn't odd, by which I meant it's not uncommon.
But you are also of the opinion that the name should not be changed.
see, but you can opt into being a quaker, deacon, or christian, and then opt right the hell back out.
and i will be keeping in mind forever that njchik went to "sometimes girls are raped with baseball bats" in an otherwise already horrifying thread.
Geesh, I was thinking about this and how I wish I hadn't written it and I wished I could delete it, but you can't really so why bother. After all, someone will be certain to bring it up in an unrelated thread. And then you did!
I didn't argue that because it's popular, it's good. "What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular." I just argued that it isn't odd, by which I meant it's not uncommon.
But you are also of the opinion that the name should not be changed.
Is that correct?
Yes I am. But I definitely don't feel as strongly about it as many of you do. I will answer a meaningless poll about it, but it's not like I've donated time or money to support the Redskins name.
see, but you can opt into being a quaker, deacon, or christian, and then opt right the hell back out.
and i will be keeping in mind forever that njchik went to "sometimes girls are raped with baseball bats" in an otherwise already horrifying thread.
Geesh, I was thinking about this and how I wish I hadn't written it and I wished I could delete it, but you can't really so why bother. After all, someone will be certain to bring it up in an unrelated thread. And then you did!
i'm sure plenty of people remember without me reminding them. since it was unnecessary, irrelevant, crude, and jarring. but you can go ahead and try to make it my fault. that's a good way to handle being sorry for or embarrassed by something you've done.
Geesh, I was thinking about this and how I wish I hadn't written it and I wished I could delete it, but you can't really so why bother. After all, someone will be certain to bring it up in an unrelated thread. And then you did!
i'm sure plenty of people remember without me reminding them. since it was unnecessary, irrelevant, crude, and jarring. but you can go ahead and try to make it my fault. that's a good way to handle being sorry for or embarrassed by something you've done.
I'm not blaming you. I shouldn't have said it. I think without context it seems worse than it was, but it shouldn't have been said. Sure, I'm embarrassed. There wasn't much point to you bringing it back up though, just because we disagree on this issue.
Sure it's got anecdotes(!) but it also indicates that it's really not considered a derogatory slur within the NA community. And not just that it's ok for them to use the term- just not other people.... But that it's not offensive for anyone to use it.
Obviously this is 1 article from 1 guy so it may be crap- but I haven't really ever thought about this particular thing, so it's interesting to read from both sides.
i'm sure plenty of people remember without me reminding them. since it was unnecessary, irrelevant, crude, and jarring. but you can go ahead and try to make it my fault. that's a good way to handle being sorry for or embarrassed by something you've done.
I'm not blaming you. I shouldn't have said it. I think without context it seems worse than it was, but it shouldn't have been said. Sure, I'm embarrassed. There wasn't much point to you bringing it back up though, just because we disagree on this issue.
i think without context it seems exactly as bad as it was, but i agree that rehashing it is not essential.
i brought it up because the fact that you did that then colors how i receive all of your posts and will unless and until i forget it. so when you spout off that, according to your unnamed sources, a "majority" of native americans don't care about the team name or however you've phrased it, well, i don't trust you. and when you bring up "deacons, christians, and quakers" as if that's a relevant counterpoint to something identified by many people as a racial slur, i am not inclined to entertain your argument.
if as a result of these posts you find me to be annoying and superior, i understand.
I'm not blaming you. I shouldn't have said it. I think without context it seems worse than it was, but it shouldn't have been said. Sure, I'm embarrassed. There wasn't much point to you bringing it back up though, just because we disagree on this issue.
i think without context it seems exactly as bad as it was, but i agree that rehashing it is not essential.
i brought it up because the fact that you did that then colors how i receive all of your posts and will unless and until i forget it. so when you spout off that, according to your unnamed sources, a "majority" of native americans don't care about the team name or however you've phrased it, well, i don't trust you. and when you bring up "deacons, christians, and quakers" as if that's a relevant counterpoint to something identified by many people as a racial slur, i am not inclined to entertain your argument.
if as a result of these posts you find me to be annoying and superior, i understand.
Maybe a little annoying. Miso said she thought it was odd the teams were named after groups of people. So I was listing teams that are named after groups of people. Not specifically racial names. I said I've only seen one poll, plus I've personally spoken to at least 20. No one here has produced any evidence that shows how many NAs are offended. I can find a lot of polls that ask the question, but only the one that separates NA response.
I totally get having that remark color an impression of me which is part of why I regret it. I think you'll find I generally try to be reasonable, even when I disagree with someone.
The name is offensive. And anecdotal stories of, "Oh, most Native Americans are fine with it" hold no merit. Sarah Palin has a gay friend, too, right?
We're talking about a derogatory slur for a relatively small group of people with limited political power who have been historically marginalized, disenfranchised, and taken advantage of by the government, all of which makes the name even more abhorrent, in my opinion.
Want another reason? How about some psychological research on on how this term is damaging to young American Indians, particularly in schools who have American Indian mascots.
Here's a summary of the research:
The symbols, images and mascots teach non-Indian children that it's acceptable to participate in culturally abusive behavior and perpetuate inaccurate misconceptions about American Indian culture.
Establishes an unwelcome and often times hostile learning environment for American Indians students that affirms negative images/stereotypes that are promoted in mainstream society.
"American Indian mascots are harmful not only because they are often negative, but because they remind American Indians of the limited ways in which others see them. This in turn restricts the number of ways American Indians can see themselves."
Let me be perfectly clear. When I say no, I don't think it should be changed, I say that because I think it's a waste of time and resources to get riled up about political posturing instead of addressing the very real problems faced by Native Americans on reservations in this country.
Sure, they should change it, but they likely won't; and the sheer time and money that would have to go into petitioning for this change is a fucking waste. I'd much rather throw my support behind advanced government funding for reservation schools, or increased funding for the truly heinous state of things in an already-marginalized society.
My uncle spent his life as a human-rights lawyer on behalf of Native American tribes, most notably the Nez Perce, and even he thought the grandstanding behind a name-change for a goddamn sports team was ludicrous.
So that's where I stand on this issue. That while the term is historically negative and offensive, the impetus behind a change could be put to much better use. Having lived in Arizona and volunteered on the Papago / Tohono O'odham reservation, I can tell you things are fucking dire; and the renaming of a sports team isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the quality of life for these people.
In the short term, sure, a name change won't erase centuries of this country royally fucking over Native Americans. But just because it won't immediately fix everything, I don't see why you can't see it as a needed step in the process in ending their marginalization.
Sure it's got anecdotes(!) but it also indicates that it's really not considered a derogatory slur within the NA community. And not just that it's ok for them to use the term- just not other people.... But that it's not offensive for anyone to use it.
Obviously this is 1 article from 1 guy so it may be crap- but I haven't really ever thought about this particular thing, so it's interesting to read from both sides.
It's Rick Reilly. I can tell you without even reading it that it's a schmaltzy pile of crap.
It's Rick Reilly. I can tell you without even reading it that it's a schmaltzy pile of crap.
Gotcha- I have no idea who he is.
Is there the same push for all teams with Native American mascots to change their names too? That article from the APA indicated that any and all NA mascots are damaging- so I would think they should all be changed.
I think it's weird to have any specific group of people be a "mascot" for a team. And it feels a lot to me like Miso's opinion on the Halloween costume- that it just strips people down to a simplistic, artibrary image that is pretty disrespectful if you think about it- and is most often completely inaccurate.
So my vote is yes- it should be changed. But- since it's a privately owned team, I don't know if I think the owner should be forced to change it.
The thing about the argument for better utilization of funds is that they tend toward using extreme examples. Living on a reservation and in dire poverty is not the whole of the Native American experience. I don't stare down gang violence daily, nor do I live in the projects. However, I still have my own struggles with existing as a minority that are very real to me. So in the example of the confederate flag over the capitol building- yes, it does mean a hell of a lot that I don't have to drive past it on the way from my quiet, safe neighborhood to my professional job. The fact that some group had to spend time and money litigating its removal is itself a statement that I personally see value in making. I'm guessing that it's just a teensy moral boost not to have your ethnic or racial group used as a mascot with a derogatory name.
Sometimes you just need to go for the quick win. And when even the quick win isn't a quick win- well I suppose we're all just fucked. I don't know.
No, they're not directly analogous. I don't really know much about the term, admittedly. I think it's distasteful, but I'm just one person. My example is in regards to the appropriate use of funds.
I guess my larger point is that I just don't begrudge anyone their cause or hill to die on. Sometimes their motivation is either very subtle, or not something that anyone outside of the affected group could truly relate to.