Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

djnemo65 · 02-22-2007, 06:23 PM

Let me just say that there are two arguments being presented here: one is that the name is not that offensive and that not many Native Americans identify at as such. The second is that a minority group being offended by something such as this is overly-PC and problematic. The first is what is known as a cogent argument. The second is an inane argument. We need to distinguish between the two.

If a minority group expresses offense at a comment it is incredibly insensitive for someone outside of the group to question their right to be offended. To say, maybe people with funny hats are offended by the patriots or whatever is beyond stupid, because that's not a minority group, and because they aren't offended anyway. Sensitivity is definitely a good thing. Living here in Japan where there is only one ethnic group, and where those outside of that group are at best illiterate morons and at worst foreign devils, has made me really appreciate how good Americans are at existing within a heterogeneus population.

As to the second argument, it very well may be that it is only a tiny minority of Native Americans offended by the term Redskins. But why then the passion about this issue? Why not say, based on the info I have this name is not really deemed that offensive, and if I find out otherwise then maybe we should change it? Instead you guys are like, screw that, nobody is changing MY football team's name, and its not offensive, and if you think it is you are a liberal PC latte drinker, and Clinton is behind all this, and btw, Native Americans aren't really offended anyway.

So its the fervor that I don't get.

02-22-2007, 06:23 PM	#77
djnemo65 Playmaker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,836	Re: Mascot Issue (AGAIN) Let me just say that there are two arguments being presented here: one is that the name is not that offensive and that not many Native Americans identify at as such. The second is that a minority group being offended by something such as this is overly-PC and problematic. The first is what is known as a cogent argument. The second is an inane argument. We need to distinguish between the two. If a minority group expresses offense at a comment it is incredibly insensitive for someone outside of the group to question their right to be offended. To say, maybe people with funny hats are offended by the patriots or whatever is beyond stupid, because that's not a minority group, and because they aren't offended anyway. Sensitivity is definitely a good thing. Living here in Japan where there is only one ethnic group, and where those outside of that group are at best illiterate morons and at worst foreign devils, has made me really appreciate how good Americans are at existing within a heterogeneus population. As to the second argument, it very well may be that it is only a tiny minority of Native Americans offended by the term Redskins. But why then the passion about this issue? Why not say, based on the info I have this name is not really deemed that offensive, and if I find out otherwise then maybe we should change it? Instead you guys are like, screw that, nobody is changing MY football team's name, and its not offensive, and if you think it is you are a liberal PC latte drinker, and Clinton is behind all this, and btw, Native Americans aren't really offended anyway. So its the fervor that I don't get.