Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering how many problems the Native Americans face every day I don't doubt this is pretty low on their list of things that need fixing. Maybe if they could get out of a poverty cycle where their homes look like they belong in the 3rd world they may have more time and interest in having a united and overwhelming opinion on derogatory sports team names.
But that also doesn't mean the ones who do care should shut up or be instantly dismissed because there are other problems.
Your statement proves my point I originally made in post #168.
I never understood the argument that the other problems NAs face should mean this topic should be dismissed. Just seems like a reach, they are not mutually inclusive. You do not need to solve all the NA's problems to have compassion, understanding and want to support a move that would heal some very deep wounds.
Same thing with the whole "they didn't have a problem with the name for the first 80 years" agrument. Again that's like saying we should dismiss the civil rights movement because AA's "didn't seem to have a problem" with persecution for 200 years. It's the exact same mentality and it makes no sense to me. As another poster stated change takes time. Unfortunately
I remember in the 1980s when the Redskins were in the Super Bowl and there were a couple of news stories about members of certain tribes who were offended by the name.
But the scope of the news coverage (small) and the limited number of Indians who actually came out to anti-Redskins rallies or wrote Redskins sponsors indicating a possible boycott were pretty small.
So, yeah, there has always been a SMALL contingent in the native American community that felt that the name of some pro sports team was a big enough deal to put on the front burner of Indian affairs.
But, in the today's 24 hour climate of non-stop, left-wing news that dominates American media, the name of Washington's pro football team has become ISSUE #1!! and the constant "outcry" from "all over America" (no real outcry, of course) has whipped up the oversensitive class into a frenzy.
The harsh fact of the matter is if one were to travel to reservations in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, etc. and simply asked random native Americans what they felt were the MOST pressing problems in their communities its unlikely that most or even many of these people would claim that one of the key problems is the 80 year old name of a professional football team in Washington, D.C.
Doesn't mean that people can't protest...just means that perspective is needed here.
Heck, if it were really a problem then wealthy tribes could pool their casino resources and simply buy the team from Dan Snyder.
But, as we all REALLY know, the team name just isn't that big of a deal.
I remember in the 1980s when the Redskins were in the Super Bowl and there were a couple of news stories about members of certain tribes who were offended by the name.
But the scope of the news coverage (small) and the limited number of Indians who actually came out to anti-Redskins rallies or wrote Redskins sponsors indicating a possible boycott were pretty small.
So, yeah, there has always been a SMALL contingent in the native American community that felt that the name of some pro sports team was a big enough deal to put on the front burner of Indian affairs.
But, in the today's 24 hour climate of non-stop, left-wing news that dominates American media, the name of Washington's pro football team has become ISSUE #1!! and the constant "outcry" from "all over America" (no real outcry, of course) has whipped up the oversensitive class into a frenzy.
The harsh fact of the matter is if one were to travel to reservations in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, etc. and simply asked random native Americans what they felt were the MOST pressing problems in their communities its unlikely that most or even many of these people would claim that one of the key problems is the 80 year old name of a professional football team in Washington, D.C.
Doesn't mean that people can't protest...just means that perspective is needed here.
Heck, if it were really a problem then wealthy tribes could pool their casino resources and simply buy the team from Dan Snyder.
But, as we all REALLY know, the team name just isn't that big of a deal.
I imagine if you went into an inner city project and asked the Blacks living there what their biggest problems were, they'd cite lack of jobs, too many drugs, no supermarket and several other things before they came to being called the n-word.
My position is let the Washington Redskins season ticket holders vote on it. First they can vote "yes" or "no" on whether it should be kept or abolished. If it is abolished, then they can vote for a new name to replace it.
They are the people that spend their hard earned dollars and devote time to supporting the team. It is not our place to dictate to them what the team name should be. It is their decision. To other fans: you would not want people from other areas of the country deciding your local team's name, right?
My position is let the Washington Redskins season ticket holders vote on it. First they can vote "yes" or "no" on whether it should be kept or abolished. If it is abolished, then they can vote for a new name to replace it.
They are the people that spend their hard earned dollars and devote time to supporting the team. It is not our place to dictate to them what the team name should be. It is their decision. To other fans: you would not want people from other areas of the country deciding your local team's name, right?
Good point, because those who are offended (and not Washington fans) can always just take extra sweet solace every time that pathetic team is beaten throughout the season.
Your statement proves my point I originally made in post #168.
My point was this is not a priority to a lot of NAs with so many other problems they face. But to many of them it is a big deal, a huge deal, that would be a lot easier to fix than their other issues. Your position was since we didn't hear much of a fuss for the first 60 years, as if their voices would have been heard by you and me in 1955, how mad can they be?
I imagine if you went into an inner city project and asked the Blacks living there what their biggest problems were, they'd cite lack of jobs, too many drugs, no supermarket and several other things before they came to being called the n-word.
In other words, your argument is phony.
Your reply to my comment doesn't make much sense.
Calling a black person the "n-word" (which, by the way I've only seen in two situations...on those old archival films of the 1950s and 1960s when a Southern white was being interviewed during the Civil Rights Movement and almost every single day in modern America by one young African-American talking to another young African-American, but I digress) is not the same thing as the 82 year old nickname for a professional sports team that generations of Americans of all colors and different ethnicity didn't seem to have a big problem with until about a year ago.
For the third time I ask:
How is changing the name of Washington's pro football team improve the daily lives of impoverished native Americans?
Calling a black person the "n-word" (which, by the way I've only seen in two situations...on those old archival films of the 1950s and 1960s when a Southern white was being interviewed during the Civil Rights Movement and almost every single day in modern America by one young African-American talking to another young African-American, but I digress) is not the same thing as the 82 year old nickname for a professional sports team that generations of Americans of all colors and different ethnicity didn't seem to have a big problem with until about a year ago.
For the third time I ask:
How is changing the name of Washington's pro football team improve the daily lives of impoverished native Americans?
For the 10th time that is not the point and a really dumb argument. Nobody is claiming a name change will improve their horrible living conditions. If I stop calling my AA neighbor "boy" and asking him to fetch my paper I have not improved his living conditions. That does not mean it would not be the right thing to do.
...How is changing the name of Washington's pro football team improve the daily lives of impoverished native Americans?
for starters, maybe their many social interests and injustices could begin to be taken a little more seriously if we could stop thinking of the NAs as a Saturday morning cartoon caricature and begin to think of them as human beings. But if someone like you can't grasp that simple concept on your own, there isn't much chance of you caring about the more important issues anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
