Redskins "Name Change" Volume 10000000

Yeah, no thanks. I don't use wikipedia

They used the exact same numbers you did...

Jeffrey Wright is an incredible actor and a smart guy.

Jeffrey Wright defends ‘Redskins’ name (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/09/24/jeffrey-wright-defends-redskins-name/)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/files/2013/09/wright913b.png

good read

This is so scary. Is this how majorities think? If there are 2 Native Americans and they're offended than it's a problem.

Well see, the problem with that logic is that you assume everyone offended is a rationally minded person. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find multiple people offended about anything. But that doesn't mean they are all sane, level-headed people. Now before you start no, I am not saying that Native Americans are not rationally minded people, I am saying if you get up in arms about a very small minority of people that get offended over something a large majority of people don't care about, well then you've created a never-ending supply of problems that are far less important than serious issues that actually need to be taken care of.

Well see, the problem with that logic is that you assume everyone offended is a rationally minded person. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find multiple people offended about anything. But that doesn't mean they are all sane, level-headed people. Now before you start no, I am not saying that Native Americans are not rationally minded people, I am saying if you get up in arms about a very small minority of people that get offended over something a large majority of people don't care about, well then you've created a never-ending supply of problems that are far less important than serious issues that actually need to be taken care of.

Think of the lawyers, you heartless bastsrds!!!!!!!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Well see, the problem with that logic is that you assume everyone offended is a rationally minded person. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find multiple people offended about anything. But that doesn't mean they are all sane, level-headed people. Now before you start no, I am not saying that Native Americans are not rationally minded people, I am saying if you get up in arms about a very small minority of people that get offended over something a large majority of people don't care about, well then you've created a never-ending supply of problems that are far less important than serious issues that actually need to be taken care of.

your logic offends me.

Unless I've misread this but it seems according to a 2012 census, native Americans only make 1.2% of the US population. USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)

I dont have a number, but not all NA's are opposing the redskins name.

I'm not sure what reservations really mean b/c it seems to be out of US legal jurisdiction- or at least they have certain rights to their areas, so....they aren't really apart of the US in my political view.

It really seems like just a couple hundred to a few thousand NA's in all of America could have an issue. Democracy protects us from the opinion of a few vs. millions.

I'm no longer concerned this debate gains momentum b/c it's not important.

You are also operating on the assumption that only Native Americans are offended by the name redskins when that is not the case. For instance, I think most Americans would be offended if they heard the word "chink" used derogatorly towards Chinese and Chinese Americans. Just because they represent a minority of the population doesn't mean we should accept it as tolerable. For better or worse what is considered socially acceptable evolves.

This is what happens when hippies are permitted to breed. <rolls_eyes>

Anyone using any kind of derogatory term immediately sets themselves apart as bigoted, depending on the intent. The word only has the 'power' others give it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You are also operating on the assumption that only Native Americans are offended by the name redskins when that is not the case. For instance, I think most Americans would be offended if they heard the word "chink" used derogatorly towards Chinese and Chinese Americans. Just because they represent a minority of the population doesn't mean we should accept it as tolerable. For better or worse what is considered socially acceptable evolves.

Except chink wasnt used by the Chinese themselves to describe themselves with it before the racists got a hold of it. Can chink be used against a Chinese person and it not be derogatory? Any time the intent is negative, its derogatory. Calling someone a dog is derogatory, but do we accept murdering puppies due to that? Are we lobbying congress to make all dog names not allowed?

Look at it this way. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Indians themselves used the term Redskin to describe themselves. Indians against the term Redskins have a choice to make. Side with their own ancestors, or side with the racists. They choose to side with the racists over their own forefathers. Which is one of the biggest problems I have with this whole debate. Why would they do that?

As far as socially acceptable. If this country wants to honor Indians. The VERY FIRST thing we should do is redo the $20 bill. It has a picture of Andrew Jackson on it. The president that pushed for the Indian Relocation Act and is responsible for the trail of tears. Yet very few, if any, asks for that. Have you ever heard of anyone raging against the term Redskins calling for the $20 bill to be redesigned? Lets also not forget that some Indians flat out call the term Native American racist. Does anyone care? Certainly not the people calling Redskins racist. They are inconsistent in their views.

As for what is socially accepted evolving. Then we need to get rid of the Green Bay Packers name as well. That is a derogatory term for a gay man. It started as fudge packer but has been shortened to packer. Do you honestly believe that someone talking about a packer today is talking about a meat packer? It is the word replacing "faggot" in todays society. I have heard it a fair amount of times when someone was talking about gay men, and it was clear it was meant in a derogatory way. I have heard an openly gay man say he cant stand the term. It is meant in a derogatory way. So why no outrage over the Packers name (other than PETA who do mean it as a meat packer)?

Its all selective outrage, and here in lies the problem with the white/black people feigning outrage over Redskins. They arent consistent with their views of morally acceptable. They are happy to have a stack of Andrew Jacksons in their wallets while referring to them as Native Americans. If they did just a bit of research, they would realize that some Indians call that racist... But do they care? Not at all...

This is so scary. Is this how majorities think? If there are 2 Native Americans and they're offended than it's a problem.

Such an idiotic statement deserves nothing but contempt.

I am offended at this. If anyone cares to join me, I think we have "a problem".