Redskins Suing 5 Native Americans Offended By Team Name - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;46399054]Basically no one in the modern era grew up with the term redskins as anything but the sports team.[/QUOTE] Except, you know, Native Americans.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46399059]Except, you know, Native Americans.[/QUOTE] Like I said earlier: give me one documented example of the word redskins being used in a purposefully derogatory way from the last year. This shouldn't be difficult.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46399131]Like I said earlier: give me one documented example of the word redskins being used in a purposefully derogatory way from the last year. This shouldn't be difficult.[/QUOTE] Why would this not be difficult? I'm not a Native American, I haven't been closely studying or following the use of racial slurs in America. How would I even go about finding this information anyway? Obviously the five Native Americans in this article were offended by the use of the term. Do you need more than that? Regardless, it doesn't matter if the word has been used in the past year or not (I don't know why there would have to be an arbitrary time limit like that). The point is that Native Americans have been historically disadvantaged and are still currently disadvantaged because of racism.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46397895]Let me guess, you speak for EVERY native?[/QUOTE] More than the guy who "has natives in his family" yeah? Also way to conveniently leave out all the fucking other natives who have been rallying against this

Actually, the proper term for "Native Americans" is [I]American Indians[/I], seeing as they migrated to America and were not themselves native. [QUOTE=PBS Article "American Indian" or "Native American"?]At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland, at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html[/url]

[QUOTE=ThePanther;46399411]Actually, the proper term for "Native Americans" is [I]American Indians[/I], seeing as they migrated to America and were not themselves native. [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html[/url][/QUOTE] They were around before European Americans- [I]all[/I] areas, apart from the birthplace of humanity (which I believe is somewhere around Ethiopia), were not the 'native' homes of humans. But they'd been around for a good while before the Europeans came along, which is why they're considered 'Natives'- because, to our knowledge, they were the first group to majorly inhabit most of the area. [editline]3rd November 2014[/editline] Your source negates my previous point, thank you for the information.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46399151]Why would this not be difficult? I'm not a Native American, I haven't been closely studying or following the use of racial slurs in America. How would I even go about finding this information anyway? Obviously the five Native Americans in this article were offended by the use of the term. Do you need more than that?[/QUOTE] I don't care if people are offended by something unless they have actual reason to be offended. The entire reason the word "nigger" is offensive is because people still use it disparagingly ALL THE TIME. It's still commonly used as a racial insult. This is a good reason to be offended. That simply doesn't stand for the term "redskins." It is no longer used as an insult. Kids growing up today wouldn't even know the racial undertones if not for being taught that they should be offended by its usage. [QUOTE]Regardless, it doesn't matter if the word has been used in the past year or not (I don't know why there would have to be an arbitrary time limit like that). The point is that Native Americans have been historically disadvantaged and are still currently disadvantaged because of racism.[/QUOTE] I set the year limit because we're talking about modern usage. The fact that some American Indians are still victims of racism is irrelevant to the use of a word no longer associated with racism by anyone but a minority of American Indians and liberal activists. People don't get to pick what they're offended by, even though no one meant it to be disparaging in any way, and then force the rest of society to conform their language standards. They can make the social case all they want, but getting the government involved is over the line.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46399730]I don't care if people are offended by something unless they have actual reason to be offended. The entire reason the word "nigger" is offensive is because people still use it disparagingly ALL THE TIME. It's still commonly used as a racial insult. This is a good reason to be offended..[/QUOTE] You do realise you not caring is not much of an argument right? I really don't understand how a word that describes an entire race of people through the colour of their skin is deemed to be acceptable. I don't know, maybe I really am ignorant when it comes to this topic. I am not American, I have no ties to America or the natives, but to my uneducated mind it just seems offensive. Now if no native thought it was offensive than it would not be my place to demand a change. But obviously some people are offended.

i'm confused, how can someone be SUED because they're offended by something? :suicide:

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;46395862]if people actually knew the history of the name they wouldn't be so "offended" anymore if this kind of stuff keeps up we're looking at a very generic future [editline]d[/editline] while we're at it let's get rid of the braves, the indians, and the blackhawks too[/QUOTE] Neither of those teams have a derogitory name and the Indians have distances themselves from the slightly racist Indian head mascot by replacing everything with a red C

[QUOTE=Fetret;46399803]You do realise you not caring is not much of an argument right? I really don't understand how a word that describes an entire race of people through the colour of their skin is deemed to be acceptable. I don't know, maybe I really am ignorant when it comes to this topic. I am not American, I have no ties to America or the natives, but to my uneducated mind it just seems offensive. Now if no native thought it was offensive than it would not be my place to demand a change. But obviously some people are offended.[/QUOTE] There are TONS of groups that have generalized, non-specific names. People reference "white" people, "black people," etc. all the time. Everyone knows what they mean. It's common usage to refer to a group of people based on their skin color in a purely factual and non-disparaging way. It isn't the government's job to accommodate people's personal feelings about words. If a word isn't used in a disparaging way in society, then it doesn't matter how I feel about it, or how the American Indians feel about it, or how liberal college professors feel about it, etc. A group feeling bad about a word doesn't mean it should be regulated. There are some people offended by almost literally everything. We have to deal with the real situation of the word in the public circle, not the personal feelings of some specific group, and the real usage of the word "redskins" is exclusively about the sports team or historical discussions of American Indians from the 1400-1800s.

[quote]A federal judge seems to think Native Americans offended by the Washington Redskins team name are properly being sued by the NFL franchise.[/quote] this is such a biased and misleading way of wording what's happening. whether a case can go forward or not is not based on legitimacy or justification of the claim. it's only based on whether the plaintiff has what is called [i]standing[/i]. how courts determine standing can be rather strange sometimes but this is the premise of how judges proceed ripped straight from wikipedia. [quote] The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.[/quote] [editline]3rd November 2014[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29[/url]

[QUOTE=Explosions;46396290] "Get over it I can to be as racist as I want to be."[/QUOTE] I really wish the world would learn what the word racism means. we've only been having this debate for 20+ years now. Merriam Webster: [B]rac·ism[/B] : poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race : the belief that some races of people are better than others : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race : racial prejudice or discrimination so, no, calling the team Redskins is not racist, nor is 90% of the other shit that get's called racist these days. you can sit in the middle of the street ranting about yellow asian people, black people that evolved from rats, jews that covet shiny coins and hispanics that get sick if they eat anything aside from beans and rice, and until the moment you claim that any of these races are better or worse than others, or that you hate one and not another, you have said nothing racist.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;46397911]Are the Minnesota Vikings racist? They offend Northern Europeans[/QUOTE] the minnesota crackers would probably be more comparable [editline]4th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePanther;46399411]Actually, the proper term for "Native Americans" is [I]American Indians[/I], seeing as they migrated to America and were not themselves native. [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html[/url][/QUOTE] i guess we can't call anyone except for africans natives then? considering everyone mgirated somewhere at some point

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;46401744]I really wish the world would learn what the word racism means. we've only been having this debate for 20+ years now. Merriam Webster: [B]rac·ism[/B] : poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race : the belief that some races of people are better than others : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race : racial prejudice or discrimination so, no, calling the team Redskins is not racist, nor is 90% of the other shit that get's called racist these days. you can sit in the middle of the street ranting about yellow asian people, black people that evolved from rats, jews that covet shiny coins and hispanics that get sick if they eat anything aside from beans and rice, and until the moment you claim that any of these races are better or worse than others, or that you hate one and not another, you have said nothing racist.[/QUOTE] We're all competent enough to google what words mean, how about you use your rational thinking skills to figure out what "racism" means in the context of his post & argument instead of just googling bullshit to dismiss somebody's argument.

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;46396189]i just hope they don't actually change it to "Washington Warriors" if you're going to get rid of Redskins then at least keep the native american aspect [/QUOTE] Why? To use a race of people in the same context as teams named after animals, you're stripping them of their humanity. Imagine a team called the "Orientals" or the "Chinamen" with an Asian stereotype for a mascot. It's actually not even comparable. White people have named a professional sports team after an entire race that they massacred almost to extinction. Imagine a German sports team called the "Jews". It's trivializing an international tragedy and erasing an important part of history that many people ignore. [editline]3rd November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=milkandcooki;46404148]We're all competent enough to google what words mean, how about you use your rational thinking skills to figure out what "racism" means in the context of his post & argument instead of just googling bullshit to dismiss somebody's argument.[/QUOTE] Fuck semantics.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;46404213]Why? To use a race of people in the same context as teams named after animals, you're stripping them of their humanity. Imagine a team called the "Orientals" or the "Chinamen" with an Asian stereotype for a mascot. It's actually not even comparable. White people have named a professional sports team after an entire race that they massacred almost to extinction. Imagine a German sports team called the "Jews". It's trivializing an international tragedy and erasing an important part of history that many people ignore. [editline]3rd November 2014[/editline] Fuck semantics.[/QUOTE] This semantics shit that Bruhmis has been doing for like a year is dumb as hell. Okay, whatever, it's not ~technically~ racism because the dictionary said so. Want me to go and edit all of my posts that say [I]"racism"[/I] to say [I]"prejudice, deliberate or not, that is focused on one small group of individuals, but may or may not encompass each and every single one of those individuals because some may find the term offensive whilst others do not?" [/I]

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;46404213]Why? To use a race of people in the same context as teams named after animals, you're stripping them of their humanity. Imagine a team called the "Orientals" or the "Chinamen" with an Asian stereotype for a mascot.[/QUOTE] How about Notre Dame (The Fighting Irish)? Their mascot isn't any less stereotypical than any American Indian mascots. Yet no one seems to make an argument that it is inherently offensive. [T]http://i.imgur.com/BqXwZs8.jpg[/T] [QUOTE]It's actually not even comparable. White people have named a professional sports team after an entire race that they massacred almost to extinction. Imagine a German sports team called the "Jews". It's trivializing an international tragedy and erasing an important part of history that many people ignore.[/QUOTE] Disease massacred the Indians, not white people: "Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans" ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease[/URL]) Many of the European immigrants along with early America did some horrible things to the Indians, but it's simply false to say that they "massacred them almost to extinction." [QUOTE]Fuck semantics.[/QUOTE] Semantics might be annoying, but if a word is falsely used for no more reason than to have more emotional appeal it's valid to call it out. Words have meanings and to use incorrect words purposefully is to be fallacious.

the fighting micks would be more comparable than the fighting irish. and nice, now lets deny how fucked over the native americans got from europeans just to justify a football team having a stupid name

[QUOTE]now lets deny how fucked over the native americans got from europeans just to justify a football team having a stupid name[/QUOTE] Yeah, because pointing out a factual error is trying to justify something. Get off your high horse and actually read what is written. He made a factually false claim and I corrected it, nothing more nothing less.

yes that's what you were doing

[QUOTE=sgman91;46404498]How about Notre Dame (The Fighting Irish)? Their mascot isn't any less stereotypical than any American Indian mascots. Yet no one seems to make an argument that it is inherently offensive. Disease massacred the Indians, not white people: "Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans" ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease[/URL]) Many of the European immigrants along with early America did some horrible things to the Indians, but it's simply false to say that they "massacred them almost to extinction." Semantics might be annoying, but if a word is falsely used for no more reason than to have more emotional appeal it's valid to call it out. Words have meanings and to use incorrect words purposefully is to be fallacious.[/QUOTE] The simple fact of the matter is that these people have been wrongly treated throughout American history, and to attribute such a team name to a University with no Native American roots is cultural appropriation, and we (white folk) have no right to claim Native American imagery and culture as our own. On the subject of Notre Dame and other similar schools, I don't really support any type of sports team/mascot based on a certain race or nationality of people. It's weird and degrading to them. It's viewed a little differently when it's white people doing it to other white people, though. Much like how pretty much anyone can mock the French and their accents and culture (i.e. mimes, baguettes, etc.), but when the same mockery is done to people with other skin tones it's offensive. I personally think that outright mockery (in a clearly malicious sense) of any other nationality or ethnic group is wrong, regardless of the continent they hail from. Also the American government [I]did[/I] systematically oppress and deceive Natives, that's an objective fact. Haven't you heard of the Indian Removal Act of 1830? Also pretty much every disease that the Natives couldn't handle were brought upon them by European settlers. [sp]I understand that some of this may sound like I'm against assimilation of any kind. This is untrue. Assimilation can be a good thing. Different cultures existing together is something I hope will one day be realized. I just find it very hard to properly explain these ideas in my head, since they're not fully developed yet. Also my articulation isn't the great right now since it's the wee hours of the morning[/sp]

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;46404760]The simple fact of the matter is that these people have been wrongly treated throughout American history, and to attribute such a team name to a University with no Native American roots is cultural appropriation, and we (white folk) have no right to claim Native American imagery and culture as our own. [/QUOTE] Where does this arbitrary right of cultural ownership come from? Why would the descendants of a group have the exclusive rights to say how anything to do with their past culture is used? Is it "cultural appropriation" for a white man to own a taco stand? [QUOTE]On the subject of Notre Dame and other similar schools, I don't really support any type of sports team/mascot based on a certain race or nationality of people. It's weird and degrading to them. It's viewed a little differently when it's white people doing it to other white people, though. Much like how pretty much anyone can mock the French and their accents and culture (i.e. mimes, baguettes, etc.), but when the same mockery is done to people with other skin tones it's offensive. I personally think that outright mockery (in a clearly malicious sense) of any other nationality or ethnic group is wrong, regardless of the continent they hail from.[/QUOTE] That's the thing... having a team named after you isn't mockery. They picked it because of good traits, not bad. No one wants to be named after something that's getting mocked. Out of all the things they wanted to represent themselves they chose that group of people. You might feel that it's degrading, but that's just your personal opinion. Many people feel the exact opposite. [QUOTE]Also the American government [I]did[/I] systematically oppress and deceive Natives, that's an objective fact. Haven't you heard of the Indian Removal Act of 1830? Also pretty much every disease that the Natives couldn't handle were brought upon them by European settlers.[/QUOTE] I didn't claim that the settlers never treated the American Indians badly. I simply refuted that the Europeans massacred them almost to extinction. Disease brought by the Europeans, sure, but accidentally killing a lot of people through a process that you don't even understand is a whole lot different from genocide.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;46404760]The simple fact of the matter is that these people have been wrongly treated throughout American history, and to attribute such a team name to a University with no Native American roots is cultural appropriation, and we (white folk) have no right to claim Native American imagery and culture as our own.[/QUOTE] No offense, but I find the whole "cultural appropriation" rhetoric hilariously out of touch with reality. On what grounds can you prevent other persons to get inspiration from your culture? Why is it a bad thing? On what basis would cultural ownership work? Should we prioritize persons of genetic heritage or people who are most in touch with the culture? Was it disrespectful of the Romans to assimilate Greek and Egyptian culture and religion? [QUOTE]On the subject of Notre Dame and other similar schools, I don't really support any type of sports team/mascot based on a certain race or nationality of people. It's weird and degrading to them.[/QUOTE] Why would the mere use of a "race" or nationality be degrading to said people? It's the execution that makes it offensive or not, not the fact it's inspired by their culture. [QUOTE][sp]I understand that some of this may sound like I'm against assimilation of any kind. This is untrue.[/sp][/QUOTE] Then I think you should elaborate because this: [QUOTE] to attribute such a team name to a University with no Native American roots is cultural appropriation, and we (white folk) have no right to claim Native American imagery and culture as our own.[/QUOTE] Doesn't present any argument against using NA culture as an inspiration other than supposing assimilation is bad per se. [QUOTE][sp]I just find it very hard to properly explain these ideas in my head, since they're not fully developed yet. Also my articulation isn't the great right now since it's the wee hours of the morning[/sp][/QUOTE] Then maybe you should refrain from posting until you have a clear idea of what your stance is. I don't really see what your point is at the moment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46404498]How about Notre Dame (The Fighting Irish)? Their mascot isn't any less stereotypical than any American Indian mascots. Yet no one seems to make an argument that it is inherently offensive. [T]http://i.imgur.com/BqXwZs8.jpg[/T] [/QUOTE] No one really cares about ND because there isn't the sense that irish are currently disadvantaged in any major way, there also isn't the same sort of sense anymore of major systematic oppression, directed by american society at large. I don't mean that nothing bad ever happened to the irish in america, (obviously), but the situation with the redskins seems like it would be more comparable to if there were a major team called "the fighting irish" that was based in south england. And I bet that there would be similar complaints about that.

They should be offended in some cases of its use, it CAN be used as a racial slur after all

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;46404148]We're all competent enough to google what words mean, how about you use your rational thinking skills to figure out what "racism" means in the context of his post & argument instead of just googling bullshit to dismiss somebody's argument.[/QUOTE] how about people stop falsely accusing racism every time a minority race is acknowledged to exist? [editline]4th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=milkandcooki;46404314] Okay, whatever, it's not ~technically~ racism because the dictionary said so. [/I][/QUOTE] except that what you just said is one of the definitions of racism that I included and isn't at all what this is about. there's no prejudice in thinking someone's skin is red. that's the point. if you really can't figure out the difference between semantics and false accusations then I guess it's no mystery why you're one of the 3 least respected people on this well known cesspool of a forum.

[QUOTE=echelle;46408868]No one really cares about ND because there isn't the sense that irish are currently disadvantaged in any major way, there also isn't the same sort of sense anymore of major systematic oppression, directed by american society at large. I don't mean that nothing bad ever happened to the irish in america, (obviously), but the situation with the redskins seems like it would be more comparable to if there were a major team called "the fighting irish" that was based in south england. And I bet that there would be similar complaints about that.[/QUOTE] Why should past or present disadvantage have any impact on the offensiveness of a representation? Do oppressed people get vouchers that give them the right to veto any outside depiction or assimilation of their culture? You seem to see it as some sort of competition where peoples who are the most discriminated against are the ones whose culture should be the most taboo. I fail to see how those two issues are connected. Then there's the fact that such depictions can actually be offensive. But if you go down that route I don't see the point of setting up some kind of oppression contest where only the most martyr of people deserve to be represented fairly.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46409514]Why should past or present disadvantage have any impact on the offensiveness of a representation? Do oppressed people get vouchers that give them the right to veto any outside depiction or assimilation of their culture? You seem to see it as some sort of competition where peoples who are the most discriminated against are the ones whose culture should be the most taboo. I fail to see how those two issues are connected. Then there's the fact that such depictions can actually be offensive. But if you go down that route I don't see the point of setting up some kind of oppression contest where only the most martyr of people deserve to be represented fairly.[/QUOTE] I would say that making some sort of mean joke about someone who is seriously ill would be in much worse taste then making a mean joke about someone who is healthy(Obviously it would still be mean in either case). This would be one sense in which people might want to avoid offensive depictions of disadvantaged groups moreso then advantaged ones. You might also want to avoid it because people in those groups might already resent their being disadvantaged. In this case a caricature of the group by the outside society would inevitably seem like a caricature of their group under their disadvantaged condition. That is, though presumably everyone would want to be portrayed fairly, an unfair portrayal of a disadvantaged group might be seen to depict only their enforced disadvantage. In this way it could serve as a continual reminder of the more general injustice they live with. And before someone attacks me with statistics about american native peoples (though feel free), I've no idea how much this applies, Canadian native issues don't tend to focus on football team names.

[QUOTE=echelle;46409719]I would say that making some sort of mean joke about someone who is seriously ill would be in much worse taste then making a mean joke about someone who is healthy(Obviously it would still be mean in either case). This would be one sense in which people might want to avoid offensive depictions of disadvantaged groups moreso then advantaged ones. You might also want to avoid it because people in those groups might already resent their being disadvantaged. In this case a caricature of the group by the outside society would inevitably seem like a caricature of their group under their disadvantaged condition. That is, though presumably everyone would want to be portrayed fairly, an unfair portrayal of a disadvantaged group might be seen to depict only their enforced disadvantage. In this way it could serve as a continual reminder of the more general injustice they live with. And before someone attacks me with statistics about american native peoples (though feel free), I've no idea how much this applies, Canadian native issues don't tend to focus on football team names.[/QUOTE] Do you apply that train of thought to every other situation? Are you usually kinder to people who are part of minorities? Do you think it's fair to privilege people who belong to certain demographics? If not, why should it be any different for sports logos?