Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And then we'll steal your right to decide if you're ok with it or not!

"It doesn't matter if they're offended, I'M offended, and that is more important!"

That's A+ white male swagger right there. Like white people who get offended by the amount of N-word in some rap.

We did it guys, we won, we even took over their feelings.

I dont think anybody made those points at all.

Hearing the most damaging word of the last few hundred years repeated in rap songs is offensive. The pain it causes isnt limited to black people. A white person who lives in sweden can be offended by it. Is that white male swagger? LOL

I like you pepsi. You funnay. But dis is a strawman. Nobody said any of this.

I think your point is that white people cant be offended by things that happen to or primarily concern other groups of people..

That is stupid.

You go past that and label it as white male swagger and accuse people (Vulcan?) of deciding on behalf of aboriginal people world wide what is offensive to them.



What about when muslims around the world were rioting and marching because they were offended by a cartoon. And 'white' people told them it was just freedom of expression and decided for them what they could be offended by? Where were you then mate. That was a prime example of what you are talking about. The dominant majority deciding for a weaker minority what they can and cant be offended by.

A few non-aboriginal people, saying what aboriginal people have been saying for decades...that certain aspects of their culture, history and religion are taken out of context and misrepresented; while the bulk of their problems fall on deaf, careless ears...that isnt white male swagger. I'm not white and I feel offended by some logos and depictions of aboriginals world wide. What would you call it when I am offended by signs like the one used by the cleveland indians or the story behind the blackhawks logo.

I think what you have brought up does exist. But its not whats happening here.

No white male swagger. Just privileged people showing empathy and being troubled by the lack of consideration some not so privileged minorities get.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And then we'll steal your right to decide if you're ok with it or not!

"It doesn't matter if they're offended, I'M offended, and that is more important!"

That's A+ white male swagger right there. Like white people who get offended by the amount of N-word in some rap.

We did it guys, we won, we even took over their feelings.

Yeah to me being offended is more important to me than what some people I don't know feel about it. Like I've said, it's how I feel about it not how others feel about it. I'm not trying to enforce my ideas on Florida, I'm just pointing out what I feel. You can buy into the bull that FSU is selling and go along with the crowd if you like but considering things for yourself is more satisfying.

[Poe969]

I'm offended by this arguement so it should stop. This whole thread is offensive, the law system should step in to make C change it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I'm offended by this arguement so it should stop. This whole thread is offensive, the law system should step in to make C change it.

You should do what I do when I don't like a thread, I leave it.

[Vulcan]

Oh yeah about the Redskin's name.

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.
Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty's subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.
These bloody scalps were known as "redskins."
The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...skins-meaning/

[Vulcan]

Here's another poll done by a native.

The first question on the survey tells the basic story:
The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol
.
American Indians were
67 % in agreement
, 12 % wer
e neutral and
20 % disagreed
with the statement.
O
ther ethnic groups
are spread across
the
three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist,
as neutral,
or
disagreeing i
n
seeing Redskins as racially offensive.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

Here's another quote from my previous link.

“A lot of Native Americans will say they are not offended by it,” Fenelon said. “It’s not a huge racial problem, but then you read the comments, you’ll often find that they have re-appropriated the term like the so called N-word. They don’t mean that the term is not offensive because they’ve taken it back.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...143?page=0%2C2

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You can buy into the bull that FSU is selling and go along with the crowd if you like but considering things for yourself is more satisfying.

I've made my point as well as I'm going to make it but this was kind of funny.

It's tough to go championing a SJW cause du jour and then accuse someone else of falling victim to groupthink. There's nothing more groupthink than the causes of an SJW, it's how they get traction! I would know, I've ridden the good vibes of a few myself

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I've made my point as well as I'm going to make it but this was kind of funny.

It's tough to go championing a SJW cause du jour and then accuse someone else of falling victim to groupthink. There's nothing more groupthink than the causes of an SJW, it's how they get traction! I would know, I've ridden the good vibes of a few myself

I had to look up what SJW refers to.

Look it doesn't matter if an opinion is popular or not, it's whether it's right and as far as the FSU issue is concerned you're going with the popular group think view.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I had to look up what SJW refers to.

Look it doesn't matter if an opinion is popular or not, it's whether it's right and as far as the FSU issue is concerned you're going with the popular group think view.

I'm going with the view of the ####ing tribe you're supposedly protecting. Thank god you are here to tell the Seminoles what to think. Where would they be without your outrage.

[t0rrent98]

found this. Some dude had too much time on their hands and decided to incorporate the crying Michael Jordan's face into all 30 team logo's.

http://imgur.com/a/Yuxcl

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I'm going with the view of the ####ing tribe you're supposedly protecting. Thank god you are here to tell the Seminoles what to think. Where would they be without your outrage.

You're not paying attention. I'm not telling the Seminoles what to think, I'm telling you and whoever wants to listen what I think.

[spuzzum]

43 pages on this topic. Impressive. Don't like the team or name, don't watch them. Simple. All the tree huggers out there should spend their time worrying about real things that matter.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You should do what I do when I don't like a thread, I leave it.

So the people who don't like these names in question can just stop paying attention to them. Sometimes that is the best solution, there are way worse things than this going on. It isn't illegal and changing the name isn't really going to change any other issues. Spend the time and effort trying to change things that really matter.

[Geeoff]

This thread has the most tl;dr posts ever...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So the people who don't like these names in question can just stop paying attention to them. Sometimes that is the best solution, there are way worse things than this going on. It isn't illegal and changing the name isn't really going to change any other issues. Spend the time and effort trying to change things that really matter.

Generally that's what I do, I change the channel but it isn't always convenient when watching sport highlights. What I'm saying here is why I change the channel.

As for the argument that there are way worse things going on and it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's ethical.

Here's some instructional tidbits on ethics for you.

Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct.

If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot.

about illegality

The greater problem with it is that it omits the concept of ethics at all [see "Ethics vs. Compliance"]. Ethical conduct is self-motivated, based on the individual's values and the internalized desire to do the right thing. Al Gore's construct assumes that people only behave ethically if there is a tangible, state-enforced penalty for not doing so, and that not incurring a penalty (that is, not breaking the law) is, by definition, ethical.

Simply put, compliance with rules, including laws, isn't the same as ethics. Compliance depends on an individual's desire to avoid punishment. Ethical conduct arises from an individual's genuine desire to do the right thing. The most unethical person in the world will comply if the punishment is stiff enough. But if he can do something unethical without breaking the rules, watch out!

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

and as for your "there worse things" argument.

4. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: "There are worse things."
If "Everybody does it" is the Golden Rationalization, this is the bottom of the barrel. Yet amazingly, this excuse is popular in high places: witness the "Abu Ghraib was bad, but our soldiers would never cut off Nick Berg's head" argument that was common during the height of the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal. It is true that for most ethical misconduct, there are indeed "worse things." Lying to your boss in order to goof off at the golf course isn't as bad as stealing a ham, and stealing a ham is nothing compared selling military secrets to North Korea. So what? We judge human conduct against ideals of good behavior that we aspire to, not by the bad behavior of others. One's objective is to be the best human being that we can be, not to just avoid being the worst rotter anyone has ever met.

[Alberta_Beef]

We get it Vulcan you think you are morally superior and a better person than us who simply don't give a #### about the name. Just because we don't agree with what you say, doesn't mean we don't understand and you have to keep repeating it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

We get it Vulcan you think you are morally superior and a better person than us who simply don't give a #### about the name. Just because we don't agree with what you say, doesn't mean we don't understand and you have to keep repeating it.

Well from the arguments being made some posters don't understand.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by RyZ

I just did. He laughed and asked me if I thought Kirk Cousins was a legit #1 QB.

I doubt you were in the Nation, among a group. Which was the challenge. Did you hedge your bets and say it to a guy you know? I guess I wasn't explicit enough. I meant a random First Nations dude.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well from the arguments being made some posters don't understand.

No, they just think you are oversensitive, doesn't mean they don't understand.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well from the arguments being made some posters don't understand.

What's not to understand? A small minority of people don't like the Redskins name and think it's offensive. The owner of the team isn't changing the name of the team so really it's a non-issue. I think it's you that doesn't understand that as long as Snider owns the team the name will not change so the continual bumping of this thread is over nothing. End of story.